Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • When you use the word “Logical”, do you mean: – Membership(properties/facts)? –

    When you use the word “Logical”, do you mean:

    – Membership(properties/facts)?

    – Syllogisms(similarities)?

    – Algorithms(sequences)?

    Did ya’ see what I did there?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 07:23:00 UTC

  • Truth has no timetable

    Truth has no timetable.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-29 19:01:00 UTC

  • PANDERING IS FOR SHEEP – NOT MEN The philosopher needs a theory The intellectual

    PANDERING IS FOR SHEEP – NOT MEN

    The philosopher needs a theory

    The intellectuals need arguments.

    Generals need a strategy

    The captains need a plan.

    The soldiers who will fight need material incentives.

    Silly people need excuses.

    We can’t reason with silly people – they are weak.

    If we must pander to the weak, they are not men.

    We care for the sheep. We do not reason with them.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 11:16:00 UTC

  • HOW DO YOU DECIDE? Science (measurement), Reason (triangulation), Moral Intuitio

    HOW DO YOU DECIDE?

    Science (measurement),

    Reason (triangulation),

    Moral Intuition(feeling),

    Superstition (conflation)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 09:59:00 UTC

  • “We have limited cognitive information processing capacity: shall we optimize fo

    —“We have limited cognitive information processing capacity: shall we optimize for fitness or shall we optimize for truth?”— Herbert Vogelsang

    he presupposition there is that truth and fitness are not identically competitive propositions.

    I think, instead, that men are unequal and we must use the tools of cognition availble to each. If men are subhuman we must understand that they can only comprehend framing for the subhuman. If men are transcendent from the beast and fully human, then they can comprehend framing by the truth.

    So what your question implies (besides an unnecessary dichotomy) is whether we should choose the least common denominator, or as I recommend, choose the hightest possibleddenominator and heremly humor and manage those that remain.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 07:15:00 UTC

  • We all bring our genetic biases, class biases, cult biases, culture biases, and

    We all bring our genetic biases, class biases, cult biases, culture biases, and generational biases with us to the table. It’s a simple technical criticism that the method of argument Moldbug uses is ‘Critique’; that he employs it in the continental narrative structure; and that his answer is consistent with the libertine and technocratic.

    I can articulate the method of opposition or innovation, the structure of the argument, the moral presuppositions of the argument, the group evolutionary strategy in the argument, and the class of the argument for literally every group practicing in western civilization.

    Moldbug argues ‘like jews argue’ (critique: jewish hermeneutic criticism). Hoppe argues “like germans argue” (kantian rational moralism). I argue “like anglos argue” (anglo analytic law). If we had the french here I could show how they do it, or the italians, or the irish…. it doesn’t matter.

    We can’t escape who we are.

    I can tell what ‘cult’ you’re from, from your method of argument. Just as easily as I can tell your heritage by your facial features.

    There is nothing strange here other than some of us are highly particularist and able to do such things, and others are less so and not.

    It’s a skill. Like any other.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 20:40:00 UTC

  • POSTMODERN, RELIGIOUS, IDEAL, AND OCCULT SPEECH CAN BE DEFLATED AND THE DECEPTIO

    POSTMODERN, RELIGIOUS, IDEAL, AND OCCULT SPEECH CAN BE DEFLATED AND THE DECEPTIONS EXPOSED.

    ***And there is nothing I know of that cannot be communicated scientifically. What we all desperately try to do is frame and load to impress others or to lie to ourselves.***

    —“a knowing by being identical with that which is known.”—

    I don’t understand this sentence as other than a fictionalism.

    Let me see if I can deflate it:

    (a) The word “being” is a filler-word for conflating experience and action, that just like ‘thing’ or ‘stuff’, means the speaker is ignorant of what he speaks or obscuring of what he speaks. The verb to-be means ‘exists as’. So “being” can mean “doing ( something )”, or “experiencing (something)” or “doing (something) and experiencing (something)”.

    (b) I think you mean “pretending (modeling) and sympathizing with a character in order to experience sympathetic feelings or environment”. This is how we imitate all sorts of behaviors.

    (c) I think you are conflating knowing(in memory true or false) and experiencing(at present or not).

    (d) I think that we all collect identities (“I feel, think, and act like a person who thinks feels and acts by these criteria”) both as tools, as goals in pursuit of self image, as standards of measurement, and as self deceptions in lieu of achievement – in order to lie to ourselves about our status.

    (e) I think you are describing nothing other than the usually literary model of Transcendence > Monomyth > Archetype > Plot > Virtues > Assets (property-in-toto) > Status. In other words, role playing a character. When we know that the archetypes map to personality types.

    (f) I think that we can deflate all identities into attempts at acquisition both real and illusory.

    (g) I think there is nothing that you can experience that you cannot communicate without deceit (pretence, fictionalism, lying). And I think attempts to say otherwise are attempts to preserve self deceptions.

    In other words, I have not yet found anything that cannot be converted into scientific language. I have only found people making attempts to preserve deceptions.

    This is what psychologist get paid for: what lie do we tell ourselves and how can we correct it by eliminating the trauma or feeling that prevents us from avoiding it.

    SO TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THEY PURSUE TRUTH AND WISDOM:

    Why is it you need to preserve the lies?

    Because the only answer is, that you are weak or cowardly.

    “In other words, LARPING”

    (How is that for a challenge?)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 18:14:00 UTC

  • THE PAIN OF UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS You know guys, once you take upon yourself the

    THE PAIN OF UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS

    You know guys, once you take upon yourself the mission to exterminate falsehood as a means of saving your people and their genome from deception, and then preserving western civilization, with our deflationary truth, high trust and high velocity adaptation, you’re going to have to watch many of your favorite sacred cows die.

    How did Bacon, Copernicus and Newton feel? How did Darwin and Maxwell feel?

    Just because you value something profoundly does not mean it is not harmful to you and your people.

    Man up, so to speak.

    You were not right about anything except the value of western civilization. You were just a little less wrong than everyone else that had been deceived.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 15:06:00 UTC

  • RESEARCH: PRIEST VS GLADIATOR At one point I would have agreed with Adam Smith,

    RESEARCH: PRIEST VS GLADIATOR

    At one point I would have agreed with Adam Smith, because I believed research could be performed by slow individual contemplation of the written word, by the individual, at human scale – scientific research was therefore akin to scriptural study.

    But like Popper, I have come to understand that once we passed the scale of research that was possible in achievable human time frames, achievable by individuals, and instead required a MARKET in which we contributed to research in parallel, I understood that one might say he has a theory and does NOT state it is true, but instead, asks for criticism, so that together with others in the market for truth, we contribute confirmation, criticism, and additional information, and together, iteratively improve the theory.

    So smith argues as a priest, and I advocate arguing as a gladiator: I claim the top of the hill, and seek a man better than I to fell me. For I wish only to be led by better men. And the only test of superiority is defeat in a test that exists in the real world (operational language).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 09:01:00 UTC

  • if you are in the realm of philosophy, cause questions exist about the universe,

    if you are in the realm of philosophy, cause questions exist about the universe, not why questions. Why questions are limited to the incentives of men. Only religion posits such deceptive questions as a parlor game to overload the mind through verbal conflation of the material and the behavioral.

    you see. there is no way out of the box. it’s just lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 07:20:00 UTC