Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Done. 🙂

    Done. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 12:06:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887282311510806530

    Reply addressees: @EOTOverton

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887076549459025920

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887076549459025920

  • It’s funny reading your earlier writings. So lyrical! It’s as though you were a

    It’s funny reading your earlier writings. So lyrical!

    It’s as though you were a real human once and have now been all but swallowed up from the inside out by your *the autistic monster*… 😆

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 11:28:00 UTC

  • I CAN’T WAIT TO SEE WHAT THIS DOES TO A HUMAN BODY. (lol)

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/17/politics/us-navy-drone-laser-weapon/index.htmlOMG. I CAN’T WAIT TO SEE WHAT THIS DOES TO A HUMAN BODY.

    (lol)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 22:40:00 UTC

  • “Curt doesn’t even have the goddamn common decency to eat the sacred cows he mur

    —“Curt doesn’t even have the goddamn common decency to eat the sacred cows he murders. He defecates on the carcasses to purposefully spoil the meat.”— Eli Harman

    (damn….)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 22:22:00 UTC

  • “And it’s really difficult to speed up the learning process because the brain re

    —“And it’s really difficult to speed up the learning process because the brain requires time to “heal”, especially after Curt massacres one of your sacred cows right in front of your eyes.”— Ross Lampers

    (i’m gonna chuckle in my dreams tonight over that visualization )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 21:42:00 UTC

  • PART 3 – THE DEFEAT OF JARED HOWE, AND BY EXTENSION THE ENTIRETY OF ‘AUSTRIAN’ E

    PART 3 – THE DEFEAT OF JARED HOWE, AND BY EXTENSION THE ENTIRETY OF ‘AUSTRIAN’ ECONOMIC PSEUDOSCIENCE.

    Jared Howe,

    I think you’re just a disingenuous at this point, and using the very method of mandated ignorance I accuse mises and rothbard of, of kant of by claiming special pleading for general rules of behavior.

    You see, while you can identify possible truth propositions with justificationary reasoning, you cannot prevent false propositions with justificationary reasoning – that requires competition. Or what we call ’empiricism’: the competition between the ideal and the real.

    —“You’re still contradicting yourself by rejecting the validity of a priorism via a priori truth statements”—

    But what did I say actually?

    I said apriorism in economics is demonstrably insufficient for the identification of *all* economic phenomenon (including both general rules, variations from those general rules.)

    I said economics was indifferent from the others sciences in that it required survival from a competition between the analytic(thought), logical(words), existential(actions).

    And that all economic phenomenon have proven to be resistant to deduction even if they are not resistant to operational (praxeologica) explanation through sympathetic reconstruction of a series of actions taken in response to available incentives.

    I claimed that empirically, unavoidably, we have observed, that all truth claims about reality are contingent, including in economics. That even the a prior of ‘length’, ‘space’ and ‘time’ were false.

    For example, “all other things being equal, increasing the minimum wage will increase unemployment” is not true in general, and is not true in all cases. In other words, it is a synthetic, contingent, a priori proposition. Which is a pseudoscientific posturing – a way of saying ‘a general rule’.

    I am not claiming that spectrum of categories which kant referred to as a priori, are false so much as that they reflect dimensions of reality, that the scientific method is superior in describing and testing.

    A Priori: “independent of observation.”

    There are three dimensions to claims of a priori truth claim:

    i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori,

    ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and

    iii) Necessity vs Contingency

    Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims.

    (a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.

    (c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren.

    (b) “General” Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation.

    (d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.”

    This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision:

    (a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori

    (b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori

    (c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori

    (d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori

    Both Mises and Rothbard confess to this later in life. Sorry. It is what it is. They realized they had failed. Economics is like any other science “a mix of the empirical and operational”. And the praxeological movement and all that was related to it crumbled as nothing more than a pseudoscientific resistance movement against the continuing progress of science.

    Competition between the rational and the real. Markets in knowledge just like markets in everything else. There is no justificationary reasoning available to man for real world phenomenon.

    WELCOME TO THE REAL.

    You are currently in the heavy-resistance phase, as the entire cosmopolitan program comes crashing down, including the marxist-postmodern, libertine-libertarian, and neo-conservative, as well as the social democratic and classical liberal. That is because all the enlightenment views of man and all the enlightenment counter-reactions against the progress of the scientific method (criticism) by various methods of justification(justificationism) have been demonstrated to be false.

    Man was not oppressed by aristocracy. He was a beast that a small minority of gifted martial aristocrats domesticated from animal, to slave, to serf, to freeman, to citizen resulting in the diminution of the lower and increase in the middle and upper middle classes through reproductive suppression, war, starvation, and aggressive hanging.

    Man is a rational actor for whom cooperation is possible and generally superior choice. But at all times he chooses moral or immoral action by little more than either habit or accounting of consequences.

    And as such we invented the natural common law of reciprocity since no matter how complex our social orders, all conflicts over demonstrated investments are decidable by tests of reciprocity.

    There is but one epistemological method and that is the the market for competition for consistency between the dimensions, and the market for competition for consistent application in reality.

    And because of that competition, both truth and lie can survive. If only because it is cheaper to produce deception than truth.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 21:18:00 UTC

  • RAND As a literary philosopher she brought the moral code of middle class judais

    RAND

    As a literary philosopher she brought the moral code of middle class judaism to middle class americans resisting bolshevism in a form that the audience could digest.

    As an analytic philosopher, or a social scientist she was lacking in a full accounting, just as all three jewish class philosophies (marxism/libertarianism/neo-conservatism), lacked a full accounting. The jews had evolved to live off the commons of others rather than produce them themselves. They took the female strategy to the male strategy of the land holding peoples.

    And while western man’s traditions did not lack this full accounting, he developed it by competition in war, rule, polities, markets, and marriage, by tradition and habit and trial and error, not by articulated reason and deliberative law as did the jews.

    So while western man could defeat with physical science the supernatural fictionalism of the jews, he could not resist marxism, libertarianism, and neo-conservatism of the jews. And Rand supplied that articulation.

    Thankfully we westerners no longer have that problem: because marxism-postmodernism, libertarianism, and neoconservatism have all been proven false by the evidence.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 12:51:00 UTC

  • “Who CAN be trusted with literary interpretation? I don’t trust people who are d

    —“Who CAN be trusted with literary interpretation? I don’t trust people who are dumber than me, because they are idiots. And I don’t trust people who are smarter than me, because they are probably up to something. I can’t necessarily say what, but they seem shady. People who are exactly as intelligent as me are probably alright, but only if they are related closely enough.”— Ely Harman

    (classic) lol

    Ergo. “Calculation.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-15 10:35:00 UTC

  • “Have the Jordan Peterson followers realized their tribalism is turning into/has

    —“Have the Jordan Peterson followers realized their tribalism is turning into/has turned into a cult yet?”—

    I am pretty sure that Peterson has restated Stoicism(self authoring), using cognitive science, and combined it with literary analysis as allegory to cognitive science, and produced a contender for a secular synthesis and restatement of the religions of our pagan, christian, and secular ages.

    So it is possible that he’s founding a Reformation – and possibly the reformation people arguably want. And a reformation we need very much, because Marxism-Postmodernism was a false and pseudoscientific religion. And to some degree I see him as attempting to provide a scientific religion in opposition to the pseudoscientific religion of marxism-postmodernism.

    I’m about the same age, and I work on the inverse of Peterson’s work – epistemology, testimony, law, politics, and group evolutionary strategy. So where he tries to provide tools of meaning to teach, I try to find tools of decidability to judge.

    But I’ve come to very similar conclusions. And it is fairly hard to possess a general knowledge of the state of cognitive science, the history of evolutionary biology and psychology, the history of cooperation(economics), the history of conflict (law), and to come to very different conclusions.

    So you can frame his work as education. And maybe a cult. But if you want to frame peterson’s work as a self-help cult, well, you wouldn’t be the first person to say such a thing. But then, that is the purpose of literature, myth, and religion.

    I agree with him deeply on most subjects, but the difference is that in the choice between teaching mental discipline and teaching mental coping mechanisms, I place greater emphasis on the former and he the latter. Which is what you would expect from a Paternally biased Judge (me), and Maternally biased Teacher (him).

    Given that we can teach by science(theoretical first causes), history(evidence of our behavior), literature(temporal analogy), myth(eternal analogy) and never claim more than analogy, my frustration is that I don’t agree that the Abrahamic cults (judaism, christianity, islam, marxism-postmodernism) that move beyond analogy to the utopian, the ideal and the supernatural, are necessary or beneficial.

    I find the abrahamic religions as among the worst evils in human history, and that life prior to them, and that history tells us that life in their absence both in the far east, and in our ancient world, and in our modern world leave us little choice but to deeply question why the utopian, ideal, and supernatural produce anything except the psychological equivalent of drug addiction and addiction behavior.

    So that is the ‘debate’ I think we should have. Not whether Peterson is stumbling upon a restoration, or a reformation, but whether he will improve the modern version of abrahamic cults (marxism-postmodernism), or whether he will simply perpetuate it, such that it returns in an even more virulent form.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-15 02:22:00 UTC

  • “Have the Jordan Peterson followers realized their tribalism is turning into/has

    —“Have the Jordan Peterson followers realized their tribalism is turning into/has turned into a cult yet?”—

    I am pretty sure that Peterson has restated Stoicism(self authoring), using cognitive science, and combined it with literary analysis as allegory to cognitive science, and produced a contender for a secular synthesis and restatement of the religions of our pagan, christian, and secular ages.

    So it is possible that he’s founding a Reformation – and possibly the reformation people arguably want. And a reformation we need very much, because Marxism-Postmodernism was a false and pseudoscientific religion. And to some degree I see him as attempting to provide a scientific religion in opposition to the pseudoscientific religion of marxism-postmodernism.

    I’m about the same age, and I work on the inverse of Peterson’s work – epistemology, testimony, law, politics, and group evolutionary strategy. So where he tries to provide tools of meaning to teach, I try to find tools of decidability to judge.

    But I’ve come to very similar conclusions. And it is fairly hard to possess a general knowledge of the state of cognitive science, the history of evolutionary biology and psychology, the history of cooperation(economics), the history of conflict (law), and to come to very different conclusions.

    So you can frame his work as education. And maybe a cult. But if you want to frame peterson’s work as a self-help cult, well, you wouldn’t be the first person to say such a thing. But then, that is the purpose of literature, myth, and religion.

    I agree with him deeply on most subjects, but the difference is that in the choice between teaching mental discipline and teaching mental coping mechanisms, I place greater emphasis on the former and he the latter. Which is what you would expect from a Paternally biased Judge (me), and Maternally biased Teacher (him).

    Given that we can teach by science(theoretical first causes), history(evidence of our behavior), literature(temporal analogy), myth(eternal analogy) and never claim more than analogy, my frustration is that I don’t agree that the Abrahamic cults (judaism, christianity, islam, marxism-postmodernism) that move beyond analogy to the utopian, the ideal and the supernatural, are necessary or beneficial.

    I find the abrahamic religions as among the worst evils in human history, and that life prior to them, and that history tells us that life in their absence both in the far east, and in our ancient world, and in our modern world leave us little choice but to deeply question why the utopian, ideal, and supernatural produce anything except the psychological equivalent of drug addiction and addiction behavior.

    So that is the ‘debate’ I think we should have. Not whether Peterson is stumbling upon a restoration, or a reformation, but whether he will improve the modern version of abrahamic cults (marxism-postmodernism), or whether he will simply perpetuate it, such that it returns in an even more virulent form.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-15 02:21:00 UTC