Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Popper's Cosmopolitanism

    POPPER’S COSMOPOLITANISM
    (worth repeating)

    [I] increasingly position Popper as trying to defend against the authoritarian use of science promoted by the (pseudo)scientific socialists. And his moral propositions are true, albeit not much of an advance on Socrates’ less elaborate one: that wisdom is knowing our ignorance, and being none-to certain of anything, that we are willing to coerce others to common ends.

    And like all cosmopolitans he is ALSO, at every moment resisting anglo empiricism, political truth, and the requirement that we contribute to the commons. Like the rest, he seems to want to preserve ethical dualism, central to the cosmopolitan mission. Whereas objective truth is a political construct, cosmopolitan truth is not – it is either authoritarian on one hand, or dualistic, preserving choice independent of objective truth, but never political. (This is a really complicated and really fascinating line of thought I’m working on, and I haven’t reduced it to something tolerably digestible yet. But as someone else said, I think it’s a superior to the Hegelian hypothesis of cultural differences.)

    But like all the cosmopolitans, Popper seems to have resorted to their strange fascination with getting it only half right, and fudging the rest with elaborate conflation of existence, experience, and objective experience through the mere use of experiential language. This is very consistent with jewish literature, which is the most sophisticated justificationary philosophy humans have ever invented. Muhammed couldn’t rely on the same intellect so he just reduced the same ideas to authoritarian commands. The Chinese wrote in hedged moralisms justified by harmony (balance) – but they honestly could not solve the problem of politics, because the very idea was an anathema. The europeans celebrate aspirational falsehoods (democracy) in part because politics is an aristocratic status signal – and in most of the west, participation and contribution mandatory.

    I see what the cosmopolitans are doing now, but I am not sure how it’s possible. I mean, in Heidegger you can see it and in Kant you can see it, but in both cases it’s in the aristotelian sense: objective. These are products brought to market. Cosmopolitan ideas are authoritarian prognostications positioned as truths. While all of the cosmopolitans retain subjectivity by verbal conflation.

    I want to ask Agassi about this because he dances all around the subject in his recent book, which I’ve read, twice now, but I think I might piss him off. (Honestly I got more out of his analysis of popper’s context than all other writers combined. It’s literally delicious to read. I dont think I really understood Feyerabend’s motives until I read Agassi.)

    So, I think, probably within a year or at the outside two, I will figure out they how, what and why, of the technique they are using, and I can put an end to that form of obscurantism too. Not that I care about Popper, but because of all the less noble applications of that technique.

    Curt.

  • Popper’s Cosmopolitanism

    POPPER’S COSMOPOLITANISM
    (worth repeating)

    [I] increasingly position Popper as trying to defend against the authoritarian use of science promoted by the (pseudo)scientific socialists. And his moral propositions are true, albeit not much of an advance on Socrates’ less elaborate one: that wisdom is knowing our ignorance, and being none-to certain of anything, that we are willing to coerce others to common ends.

    And like all cosmopolitans he is ALSO, at every moment resisting anglo empiricism, political truth, and the requirement that we contribute to the commons. Like the rest, he seems to want to preserve ethical dualism, central to the cosmopolitan mission. Whereas objective truth is a political construct, cosmopolitan truth is not – it is either authoritarian on one hand, or dualistic, preserving choice independent of objective truth, but never political. (This is a really complicated and really fascinating line of thought I’m working on, and I haven’t reduced it to something tolerably digestible yet. But as someone else said, I think it’s a superior to the Hegelian hypothesis of cultural differences.)

    But like all the cosmopolitans, Popper seems to have resorted to their strange fascination with getting it only half right, and fudging the rest with elaborate conflation of existence, experience, and objective experience through the mere use of experiential language. This is very consistent with jewish literature, which is the most sophisticated justificationary philosophy humans have ever invented. Muhammed couldn’t rely on the same intellect so he just reduced the same ideas to authoritarian commands. The Chinese wrote in hedged moralisms justified by harmony (balance) – but they honestly could not solve the problem of politics, because the very idea was an anathema. The europeans celebrate aspirational falsehoods (democracy) in part because politics is an aristocratic status signal – and in most of the west, participation and contribution mandatory.

    I see what the cosmopolitans are doing now, but I am not sure how it’s possible. I mean, in Heidegger you can see it and in Kant you can see it, but in both cases it’s in the aristotelian sense: objective. These are products brought to market. Cosmopolitan ideas are authoritarian prognostications positioned as truths. While all of the cosmopolitans retain subjectivity by verbal conflation.

    I want to ask Agassi about this because he dances all around the subject in his recent book, which I’ve read, twice now, but I think I might piss him off. (Honestly I got more out of his analysis of popper’s context than all other writers combined. It’s literally delicious to read. I dont think I really understood Feyerabend’s motives until I read Agassi.)

    So, I think, probably within a year or at the outside two, I will figure out they how, what and why, of the technique they are using, and I can put an end to that form of obscurantism too. Not that I care about Popper, but because of all the less noble applications of that technique.

    Curt.

  • Popper's Cosmopolitanism

    POPPER’S COSMOPOLITANISM
    (worth repeating)

    [I] increasingly position Popper as trying to defend against the authoritarian use of science promoted by the (pseudo)scientific socialists. And his moral propositions are true, albeit not much of an advance on Socrates’ less elaborate one: that wisdom is knowing our ignorance, and being none-to certain of anything, that we are willing to coerce others to common ends.

    And like all cosmopolitans he is ALSO, at every moment resisting anglo empiricism, political truth, and the requirement that we contribute to the commons. Like the rest, he seems to want to preserve ethical dualism, central to the cosmopolitan mission. Whereas objective truth is a political construct, cosmopolitan truth is not – it is either authoritarian on one hand, or dualistic, preserving choice independent of objective truth, but never political. (This is a really complicated and really fascinating line of thought I’m working on, and I haven’t reduced it to something tolerably digestible yet. But as someone else said, I think it’s a superior to the Hegelian hypothesis of cultural differences.)

    But like all the cosmopolitans, Popper seems to have resorted to their strange fascination with getting it only half right, and fudging the rest with elaborate conflation of existence, experience, and objective experience through the mere use of experiential language. This is very consistent with jewish literature, which is the most sophisticated justificationary philosophy humans have ever invented. Muhammed couldn’t rely on the same intellect so he just reduced the same ideas to authoritarian commands. The Chinese wrote in hedged moralisms justified by harmony (balance) – but they honestly could not solve the problem of politics, because the very idea was an anathema. The europeans celebrate aspirational falsehoods (democracy) in part because politics is an aristocratic status signal – and in most of the west, participation and contribution mandatory.

    I see what the cosmopolitans are doing now, but I am not sure how it’s possible. I mean, in Heidegger you can see it and in Kant you can see it, but in both cases it’s in the aristotelian sense: objective. These are products brought to market. Cosmopolitan ideas are authoritarian prognostications positioned as truths. While all of the cosmopolitans retain subjectivity by verbal conflation.

    I want to ask Agassi about this because he dances all around the subject in his recent book, which I’ve read, twice now, but I think I might piss him off. (Honestly I got more out of his analysis of popper’s context than all other writers combined. It’s literally delicious to read. I dont think I really understood Feyerabend’s motives until I read Agassi.)

    So, I think, probably within a year or at the outside two, I will figure out they how, what and why, of the technique they are using, and I can put an end to that form of obscurantism too. Not that I care about Popper, but because of all the less noble applications of that technique.

    Curt.

  • Popper’s Cosmopolitanism

    POPPER’S COSMOPOLITANISM
    (worth repeating)

    [I] increasingly position Popper as trying to defend against the authoritarian use of science promoted by the (pseudo)scientific socialists. And his moral propositions are true, albeit not much of an advance on Socrates’ less elaborate one: that wisdom is knowing our ignorance, and being none-to certain of anything, that we are willing to coerce others to common ends.

    And like all cosmopolitans he is ALSO, at every moment resisting anglo empiricism, political truth, and the requirement that we contribute to the commons. Like the rest, he seems to want to preserve ethical dualism, central to the cosmopolitan mission. Whereas objective truth is a political construct, cosmopolitan truth is not – it is either authoritarian on one hand, or dualistic, preserving choice independent of objective truth, but never political. (This is a really complicated and really fascinating line of thought I’m working on, and I haven’t reduced it to something tolerably digestible yet. But as someone else said, I think it’s a superior to the Hegelian hypothesis of cultural differences.)

    But like all the cosmopolitans, Popper seems to have resorted to their strange fascination with getting it only half right, and fudging the rest with elaborate conflation of existence, experience, and objective experience through the mere use of experiential language. This is very consistent with jewish literature, which is the most sophisticated justificationary philosophy humans have ever invented. Muhammed couldn’t rely on the same intellect so he just reduced the same ideas to authoritarian commands. The Chinese wrote in hedged moralisms justified by harmony (balance) – but they honestly could not solve the problem of politics, because the very idea was an anathema. The europeans celebrate aspirational falsehoods (democracy) in part because politics is an aristocratic status signal – and in most of the west, participation and contribution mandatory.

    I see what the cosmopolitans are doing now, but I am not sure how it’s possible. I mean, in Heidegger you can see it and in Kant you can see it, but in both cases it’s in the aristotelian sense: objective. These are products brought to market. Cosmopolitan ideas are authoritarian prognostications positioned as truths. While all of the cosmopolitans retain subjectivity by verbal conflation.

    I want to ask Agassi about this because he dances all around the subject in his recent book, which I’ve read, twice now, but I think I might piss him off. (Honestly I got more out of his analysis of popper’s context than all other writers combined. It’s literally delicious to read. I dont think I really understood Feyerabend’s motives until I read Agassi.)

    So, I think, probably within a year or at the outside two, I will figure out they how, what and why, of the technique they are using, and I can put an end to that form of obscurantism too. Not that I care about Popper, but because of all the less noble applications of that technique.

    Curt.

  • Cases of Moral Conditions

    —“That we have immoral politics for thousands of years does not make crass politics any less evil.”– David Macdonough.

    (Note, I just wanted to capture this response here, as a good illustration of the familial origins of morality. In this reply, I’m trying to suggest why government must be not just rational but scientific. Because, as most of you know, I have become very hostile to the pretense of reason, given the pseudoscientific attack on the west during the 20th century.)

    David,

    [C]ASES
    A population ISLE is on a large island with Crete’s climate, plenty of sea resources, fertile volcanic soil, and they prohibit marriage until the couple can afford to buy their own home, so they practice late marriage and reproduction. This controls their population. They are all closely related so they out-breed. They conduct internal and sea trade.

    A population FOR lives in a land of forests and rivers, with a temperate climate of hot but bearable summers and cold but bearable winters, fertile soil, and they prohibit marriage until the couple can own their own home, so they practice late marriage and reproduction. Most neighboring populations practice very similar manners, ethics, morals, and traditions, and they conduct land and river trade. They are all closely related so they out breed at least locally.

    A population PEN lives on a peninsula that provides adequate but not good terrain and soil. They are surrounded on all sides by very different peoples, all of whom seek control of trade routes and taxes to fund the costs of keeping competitors at bay. They practice traditional families. Only the upper classes control their breeding. They practice non-egalitarian inheritance to keep property in the family. They breed largely with close friends and relatives.

    A Population STP lives on an steppe of horsemen with limited resources, no transportable rivers or sea lanes, harsh winters and warm short summers. All local resources are scarce so they move their herds constantly across vast areas and constantly come into competition with other similar groups. The do not control their breeding and they in-breed to keep limited portable property in the family.

    A Population DES lives on a desert of horsemen with no resources, hot days and cold nights, useless soil, and they sustain themselves by migratory herding. There are no local resources so they move their herds constantly across very fragile terrain and compete ruthlessly to obtain or hold what they have. They do not control their breeding and they in-breed almost exclusively to keep limited portable property in the family.

    While the assessment of criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial conduct remains constant in all cultures, the TOLERANCE or INTOLERANCE for criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial conduct varies between these groups. The degree of demonstrated morality one practices reflects the degree of outbreeding one practices.

    Cooperation is a reproductive strategy. The only rational reason for abandoning violence is that it is more rewarding to cooperate than conflict. The only reason to engage in ethical behavior is because it is more rewarding than engaging in deception with out-group members (the market) and in-group members – because they will ostracize you. The only reason to engage in moral behavior is because other members of your group will ostracize you for not. But one doesn’t care about out-group members, upon who we can impose costs at will whenever possible.

    Westerners make the mistake of confusing the universal ethics of the market, with the strategic reproductive ethics of the polity.

    No one other than westerners makes this mistake. When other civilizations complain about capitalism, it is the attack on their family structures that it represents, in no small part, they are reacting to – justifiably.

    In then end analysis, under unmitigated fully ethical, but morally neutral capitalism, over time, the most parasitic peoples that breed the fastest will conquer those that attempt to concentrate and accumulate capital.

    (See **Altruistic Punishment**. ie: suicidal tendencies.)

    I don’t make ‘should’ arguments. I make ‘is’ arguments. What we do with the world as it is, is a competitive advantage. That is why scientific arguments are a competitive advantage. A competitive advantage for the tribes and families that use them. Everything less scientific is merely a disadvantage.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  • Cases of Moral Conditions

    —“That we have immoral politics for thousands of years does not make crass politics any less evil.”– David Macdonough.

    (Note, I just wanted to capture this response here, as a good illustration of the familial origins of morality. In this reply, I’m trying to suggest why government must be not just rational but scientific. Because, as most of you know, I have become very hostile to the pretense of reason, given the pseudoscientific attack on the west during the 20th century.)

    David,

    [C]ASES
    A population ISLE is on a large island with Crete’s climate, plenty of sea resources, fertile volcanic soil, and they prohibit marriage until the couple can afford to buy their own home, so they practice late marriage and reproduction. This controls their population. They are all closely related so they out-breed. They conduct internal and sea trade.

    A population FOR lives in a land of forests and rivers, with a temperate climate of hot but bearable summers and cold but bearable winters, fertile soil, and they prohibit marriage until the couple can own their own home, so they practice late marriage and reproduction. Most neighboring populations practice very similar manners, ethics, morals, and traditions, and they conduct land and river trade. They are all closely related so they out breed at least locally.

    A population PEN lives on a peninsula that provides adequate but not good terrain and soil. They are surrounded on all sides by very different peoples, all of whom seek control of trade routes and taxes to fund the costs of keeping competitors at bay. They practice traditional families. Only the upper classes control their breeding. They practice non-egalitarian inheritance to keep property in the family. They breed largely with close friends and relatives.

    A Population STP lives on an steppe of horsemen with limited resources, no transportable rivers or sea lanes, harsh winters and warm short summers. All local resources are scarce so they move their herds constantly across vast areas and constantly come into competition with other similar groups. The do not control their breeding and they in-breed to keep limited portable property in the family.

    A Population DES lives on a desert of horsemen with no resources, hot days and cold nights, useless soil, and they sustain themselves by migratory herding. There are no local resources so they move their herds constantly across very fragile terrain and compete ruthlessly to obtain or hold what they have. They do not control their breeding and they in-breed almost exclusively to keep limited portable property in the family.

    While the assessment of criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial conduct remains constant in all cultures, the TOLERANCE or INTOLERANCE for criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial conduct varies between these groups. The degree of demonstrated morality one practices reflects the degree of outbreeding one practices.

    Cooperation is a reproductive strategy. The only rational reason for abandoning violence is that it is more rewarding to cooperate than conflict. The only reason to engage in ethical behavior is because it is more rewarding than engaging in deception with out-group members (the market) and in-group members – because they will ostracize you. The only reason to engage in moral behavior is because other members of your group will ostracize you for not. But one doesn’t care about out-group members, upon who we can impose costs at will whenever possible.

    Westerners make the mistake of confusing the universal ethics of the market, with the strategic reproductive ethics of the polity.

    No one other than westerners makes this mistake. When other civilizations complain about capitalism, it is the attack on their family structures that it represents, in no small part, they are reacting to – justifiably.

    In then end analysis, under unmitigated fully ethical, but morally neutral capitalism, over time, the most parasitic peoples that breed the fastest will conquer those that attempt to concentrate and accumulate capital.

    (See **Altruistic Punishment**. ie: suicidal tendencies.)

    I don’t make ‘should’ arguments. I make ‘is’ arguments. What we do with the world as it is, is a competitive advantage. That is why scientific arguments are a competitive advantage. A competitive advantage for the tribes and families that use them. Everything less scientific is merely a disadvantage.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  • Aesthetics In Three Dimensions

    THREE AXIS OF AESTHETIC CRITICISM: 1) CRAFT (Materials and Workmanship) 2) DESIGN (Aesthetic appeal and ‘beauty’) 3) CONTENT (Values, associations and narrative) The comparative quality of all art is objectively ascertainable by recursive triangulation.

  • Aesthetics In Three Dimensions

    THREE AXIS OF AESTHETIC CRITICISM: 1) CRAFT (Materials and Workmanship) 2) DESIGN (Aesthetic appeal and ‘beauty’) 3) CONTENT (Values, associations and narrative) The comparative quality of all art is objectively ascertainable by recursive triangulation.

  • VINCENT LEE HORTON ON AUTISTIC INQUIRY —“The bard or village storyteller disco

    VINCENT LEE HORTON ON AUTISTIC INQUIRY

    —“The bard or village storyteller discovered that the better the mythology the more likely the audience and the storytelling became more valuable than the story. autistics place higher value in principles of communication that validate multiple points of reference to perception as the point of conversation in the first place.

    I would argue that the ‘weakness’ [of autism] is actually the strength. Whereas an autistic is somewhat endlessly uncertain about their phenomenological reality they have adapted to continuously accumulate more points of reference to validate and therefore are better informed. The non-autistic has a handicap in their assumptions about truth.”— Vincent Lee Horton

    Love it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-24 11:32:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://feedly.com/k/1n14jWOStrange

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-23 17:46:00 UTC