Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550189519 Timestamp) I told you. The Truth Is The Most Intolerant Religion. And our ancestors are the only Cult under that law.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550233498 Timestamp) DO WE POSITIVELY DISAMBIGUATE OR AMBIGUATE IN DEFENSE? —“I think it’s insulting for idealists to be associated with Evola. It’s not primacy of consciousness, it’s not Kant. It’s sword-and-sorcery. People who say that Evola introduced them to philosophy weren’t introduced to it at all; they were just stalled and set up for humiliation if they ever decided to argue with a philosophical opponent. They should read Heidegger instead if they insist on living outside of reality, but even he might prove too profane and earthly for their liking.”—by Göran Dahl CURTD: Correct. But this is the problem tho: unless taught the direct road, people must take what road that is easiest to follow given their experience. And they always and everywhere move from the emotive to the analytic – slowly for reasons anyone familiar with artificial intelligence and neurology can explain: more neural christmas tree lights go on with emotion until you have enough information to light them without it. And there is the rub: do we disambiguate, and suppress conflation between literature (analogy) and thought (philosophy, history) and teach stoicism and the law (which is intuitive). Or do we make a via-positiva claim about philosophy, religion, occult, and maintain conflation and ‘ambiguation’. This is the problem with differences between anglo-scandinavian, franco-german continental, and italian peoples We get better intellectuals out of italy in the south, and england in the north, and better engineers, craftsmen, and citizens in germany. But why? Genetically we are all germanic (european) peoples. So the general argument is that we must ‘program’ good behavior into people (germany good, france bad) by educating their intuition with emotion, teaching them mindfulness, and teaching them the law. purely out of defense against those who lie. Education is just as defensive as it is opportunity generating.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550233498 Timestamp) DO WE POSITIVELY DISAMBIGUATE OR AMBIGUATE IN DEFENSE? —“I think it’s insulting for idealists to be associated with Evola. It’s not primacy of consciousness, it’s not Kant. It’s sword-and-sorcery. People who say that Evola introduced them to philosophy weren’t introduced to it at all; they were just stalled and set up for humiliation if they ever decided to argue with a philosophical opponent. They should read Heidegger instead if they insist on living outside of reality, but even he might prove too profane and earthly for their liking.”—by Göran Dahl CURTD: Correct. But this is the problem tho: unless taught the direct road, people must take what road that is easiest to follow given their experience. And they always and everywhere move from the emotive to the analytic – slowly for reasons anyone familiar with artificial intelligence and neurology can explain: more neural christmas tree lights go on with emotion until you have enough information to light them without it. And there is the rub: do we disambiguate, and suppress conflation between literature (analogy) and thought (philosophy, history) and teach stoicism and the law (which is intuitive). Or do we make a via-positiva claim about philosophy, religion, occult, and maintain conflation and ‘ambiguation’. This is the problem with differences between anglo-scandinavian, franco-german continental, and italian peoples We get better intellectuals out of italy in the south, and england in the north, and better engineers, craftsmen, and citizens in germany. But why? Genetically we are all germanic (european) peoples. So the general argument is that we must ‘program’ good behavior into people (germany good, france bad) by educating their intuition with emotion, teaching them mindfulness, and teaching them the law. purely out of defense against those who lie. Education is just as defensive as it is opportunity generating.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550282310 Timestamp) —“There’s another way to sum up your approach, Curt Doolittle—Critical Naturalism with an Operational Epistemology requires “metaphysical humility” before the Natural Law. Nature has many undiscovered secrets to be sure, but we use Testimonialism and Scientific investigation rather than metaphysical speculation to gain insight.”–Nick Dahlheim

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550282310 Timestamp) —“There’s another way to sum up your approach, Curt Doolittle—Critical Naturalism with an Operational Epistemology requires “metaphysical humility” before the Natural Law. Nature has many undiscovered secrets to be sure, but we use Testimonialism and Scientific investigation rather than metaphysical speculation to gain insight.”–Nick Dahlheim

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550271669 Timestamp) SO IN CLOSING, RETURNING TO THE CENTRAL POINT: METAPHYSICS = SOPHISM OF PSEUDOSCIENCE Fictions can be used for the purpose of meaning when we cannot model the underlying complexity in mind. Fictions can also be used to deceive. —“Max Tegmark says that consciousness is a “new form of matter” Theoretical physics is basically just metaphysics. Everettian multiverse is basically metaphysics Bohmian mechanics is metaphysics because it has unknown variables in the math A-theory of time is metaphysics because it needs new physics such as the ether”— Yes these are metaphysical statements meaning that they are NONSENSE statements, precisely because there is no discipline of metaphysics, only that category of nonsense we call metaphysics. In other words, metaphysics is a name we use for a category of sophism we call pseudoscience. There is neither a discipline (grammar) of pseudoscience nor metaphysics, any more than there is a discipline (grammar) of ghost studies. It is just a name for sophisms of pseudoscience, idealism, and the occult.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550271669 Timestamp) SO IN CLOSING, RETURNING TO THE CENTRAL POINT: METAPHYSICS = SOPHISM OF PSEUDOSCIENCE Fictions can be used for the purpose of meaning when we cannot model the underlying complexity in mind. Fictions can also be used to deceive. —“Max Tegmark says that consciousness is a “new form of matter” Theoretical physics is basically just metaphysics. Everettian multiverse is basically metaphysics Bohmian mechanics is metaphysics because it has unknown variables in the math A-theory of time is metaphysics because it needs new physics such as the ether”— Yes these are metaphysical statements meaning that they are NONSENSE statements, precisely because there is no discipline of metaphysics, only that category of nonsense we call metaphysics. In other words, metaphysics is a name we use for a category of sophism we call pseudoscience. There is neither a discipline (grammar) of pseudoscience nor metaphysics, any more than there is a discipline (grammar) of ghost studies. It is just a name for sophisms of pseudoscience, idealism, and the occult.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550327880 Timestamp) (Interesting finding: our people know they’re lying but they want to preserve the utility of their lies.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550343211 Timestamp) TRY IT. by Bill Johnson How could one outsmart a reasonable man (like Curt) who is merely pointing at a truth-testing device? A standard of measure with near NIST-Traceable Calibration. 😉 Curt is not saying he is unbeatable. Rather he is subjecting Propertarianism to the crucible. Bring on the heat. To attack Curt, is not to attack Propertarianism. That would be a fool’s errand. Could they say Curt are pointing at Propertarianism with the wrong hand or finger? Could they say you are not pointing at Propertarianism? That might be more irrational than a Christian Scientist saying his cancer and pain are not real.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550343211 Timestamp) TRY IT. by Bill Johnson How could one outsmart a reasonable man (like Curt) who is merely pointing at a truth-testing device? A standard of measure with near NIST-Traceable Calibration. 😉 Curt is not saying he is unbeatable. Rather he is subjecting Propertarianism to the crucible. Bring on the heat. To attack Curt, is not to attack Propertarianism. That would be a fool’s errand. Could they say Curt are pointing at Propertarianism with the wrong hand or finger? Could they say you are not pointing at Propertarianism? That might be more irrational than a Christian Scientist saying his cancer and pain are not real.