(FB 1543692795 Timestamp) AXIS: Prophet, Philosopher, Law Giver. Difference?
Category: Religion, Myth, and Theology
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543692795 Timestamp) AXIS: Prophet, Philosopher, Law Giver. Difference?
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543869749 Timestamp) JUSTIFICATION FOR GROUPING —“The Abrahamic programâs second revision (Marx, Freud, Boaz, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard, Strauss) has been catastrophic. “—CD —“That’s a pretty unintuitive grouping, what’s the justification for it?”— Trent Fowler Method of argument. Just like we have math, logic, rationalism (formal, kantian), empirical, and scientific, we also have sophistry(pseudo-rationalism), pseudoscience, and mysticism. The abrahamic method turns out to be as perfect a method of lying as the scientific method is of telling the truth. So, the abrahamic method consists of (but is not limited to ) (a) false promise (b) baiting moral hazard (c) creating opportunity for parasitism or undermining, (d) using Pilpul (sophism, justificationism), Critique (straw manning criticism without supplying operationally possible alternatives,), Heaping undue praise, and reputation destruction, by means of loding, framing, suggestion, overloading, psychologizing, moralizing, half truths and outright deceits. Now, I’ve spent a lot of time on it, but you have to ask yourself, why, if mathematical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, arguments with tests of scope, completeness, and coherence exist, why it would be that you would argue by any other means. I suspect you’re referring to either mises or rothbard, and the work is here if you want to go through it (as well as hoppe). https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/10/28/propertarianism-for-for-libertarians/
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543869749 Timestamp) JUSTIFICATION FOR GROUPING —“The Abrahamic programâs second revision (Marx, Freud, Boaz, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard, Strauss) has been catastrophic. “—CD —“That’s a pretty unintuitive grouping, what’s the justification for it?”— Trent Fowler Method of argument. Just like we have math, logic, rationalism (formal, kantian), empirical, and scientific, we also have sophistry(pseudo-rationalism), pseudoscience, and mysticism. The abrahamic method turns out to be as perfect a method of lying as the scientific method is of telling the truth. So, the abrahamic method consists of (but is not limited to ) (a) false promise (b) baiting moral hazard (c) creating opportunity for parasitism or undermining, (d) using Pilpul (sophism, justificationism), Critique (straw manning criticism without supplying operationally possible alternatives,), Heaping undue praise, and reputation destruction, by means of loding, framing, suggestion, overloading, psychologizing, moralizing, half truths and outright deceits. Now, I’ve spent a lot of time on it, but you have to ask yourself, why, if mathematical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, arguments with tests of scope, completeness, and coherence exist, why it would be that you would argue by any other means. I suspect you’re referring to either mises or rothbard, and the work is here if you want to go through it (as well as hoppe). https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/10/28/propertarianism-for-for-libertarians/
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544033582 Timestamp) GODS AS UNITS OF MEASURE —“Curt, when you say ‘A GOD is a unit of measure’, what do you mean? This idea hit me strictly from the judeo christian “god made man in his image”. Like a blue print. But i have found that referring to god as a unit of measure only seems to offend christians jews and muslims. My point was never meant to insult. Yaweh , Allah, Odin, even Satan are units of measure. Where as men we are meant to measure ourselves against as to see how and where we need to grow to become better. …i had to quit talking about this at work.”— First, while most people consider the big ideas, very few people think very deep thoughts. And the vast majority who try (like anything else) fail catastrophically. I tend to avoid such conversations unless others start them and make some error that I feel they would benefit from, or the commons would benefit from, correcting. And then, it might be better to say that a god or gods function as a system of measurement, by which people of the same god, make the same measurements (judgments), because those measurements are commensurable (compatible). Different gods require different sets of measurements, producing different judgements, that are internally commensurable (compatible) but externally not. So in this sense it’s a system of measurement we are referring to. And that is because anthropomorphism is much easier for we simple human animals to work with that reason science, and calculation. There are some relatively universal traits among all gods, but there are many differences. Particularly when ‘gods’ are ‘spirits’ or ‘ancestors’ rather than fictional characters. Those gods we ‘thank’ and persist their investments in us (ancestors), those gods that are like fickle humans and fickle nature for us to thank for the good, and outwit for the bad (european), those gods that provide wisdom (buddha), those gods that are slave-owners (abrahamic), each function as a system of measurement by which we understand, judge, and act in response to the universe and gods and politics and each other. The western Method of math, logic, Science, Economics, Law, History and Literature is a better system of measure – for an aristocracy of the middle class and higher. It does however require a great deal more training for a great deal longer, than children’s stories and anthropomorphic systems of measurement.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544033582 Timestamp) GODS AS UNITS OF MEASURE —“Curt, when you say ‘A GOD is a unit of measure’, what do you mean? This idea hit me strictly from the judeo christian “god made man in his image”. Like a blue print. But i have found that referring to god as a unit of measure only seems to offend christians jews and muslims. My point was never meant to insult. Yaweh , Allah, Odin, even Satan are units of measure. Where as men we are meant to measure ourselves against as to see how and where we need to grow to become better. …i had to quit talking about this at work.”— First, while most people consider the big ideas, very few people think very deep thoughts. And the vast majority who try (like anything else) fail catastrophically. I tend to avoid such conversations unless others start them and make some error that I feel they would benefit from, or the commons would benefit from, correcting. And then, it might be better to say that a god or gods function as a system of measurement, by which people of the same god, make the same measurements (judgments), because those measurements are commensurable (compatible). Different gods require different sets of measurements, producing different judgements, that are internally commensurable (compatible) but externally not. So in this sense it’s a system of measurement we are referring to. And that is because anthropomorphism is much easier for we simple human animals to work with that reason science, and calculation. There are some relatively universal traits among all gods, but there are many differences. Particularly when ‘gods’ are ‘spirits’ or ‘ancestors’ rather than fictional characters. Those gods we ‘thank’ and persist their investments in us (ancestors), those gods that are like fickle humans and fickle nature for us to thank for the good, and outwit for the bad (european), those gods that provide wisdom (buddha), those gods that are slave-owners (abrahamic), each function as a system of measurement by which we understand, judge, and act in response to the universe and gods and politics and each other. The western Method of math, logic, Science, Economics, Law, History and Literature is a better system of measure – for an aristocracy of the middle class and higher. It does however require a great deal more training for a great deal longer, than children’s stories and anthropomorphic systems of measurement.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a Page.
(FB 1544266409 Timestamp) CHRISTIANITY Just finished a talk with James Fox Higgins of The Rational Rise. (Damn, seriously love that man. Wonderful human.) In that discussion I think I have talked about my view of reforming christianity more so than any other public venue. The net of it is that christianity (and all our european religions for that matter) are compatible with natural law. Yet, it is christian tolerance that has made us vulnerable and is the reason we can be so easily undermined. The most intolerant wins, and we were not intolerante enough. So hence my advocacy of a very intolerant law. But a law that must somehow accommodate our traditional religion(s). He did bring up one interesting idea that (foolishly) hadn’t occurred to me: is our vulnerability as christians due to our failure to legislate christianity and thereby prevent other religions. The answer to which I think was yes. But taking it further, what would have happened if we had been smart enough to (a) legislate america as a christian country, (b) had used the jefferson bible as the definition of christianity, (c) and encoded the christian ethos (as I have), as well as (d) natural law of reciprocity (as I have)? In retrospect that would have been a very good thing. Now, i still hold the opinion that training in mindfulness by stoic (cognitive behavioral) method is superior to supernaturalism; that training in ‘sacredness’ by ‘church lesson, ritual, and oath’ is superior to any other method available to us because unlike schools it involves the whole family; that the model of jesus is excellent for teaching optimum cooperation; that the natural law can be taught in church – because the church advocated it; that it can be taught with sacredness not supernaturalism; and that the church did a much better job of educating the people than the state. I think these things are almost impossible to argue with. This is a very non-supernatural method of achieving christian ends. But it preserves the church(es) as the center of civil society and restores via-positiva to the moral discipline and limits the state to via-negativa actions. Thereby ending the means by which our civilization has been undermined.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a Page.
(FB 1544266409 Timestamp) CHRISTIANITY Just finished a talk with James Fox Higgins of The Rational Rise. (Damn, seriously love that man. Wonderful human.) In that discussion I think I have talked about my view of reforming christianity more so than any other public venue. The net of it is that christianity (and all our european religions for that matter) are compatible with natural law. Yet, it is christian tolerance that has made us vulnerable and is the reason we can be so easily undermined. The most intolerant wins, and we were not intolerante enough. So hence my advocacy of a very intolerant law. But a law that must somehow accommodate our traditional religion(s). He did bring up one interesting idea that (foolishly) hadn’t occurred to me: is our vulnerability as christians due to our failure to legislate christianity and thereby prevent other religions. The answer to which I think was yes. But taking it further, what would have happened if we had been smart enough to (a) legislate america as a christian country, (b) had used the jefferson bible as the definition of christianity, (c) and encoded the christian ethos (as I have), as well as (d) natural law of reciprocity (as I have)? In retrospect that would have been a very good thing. Now, i still hold the opinion that training in mindfulness by stoic (cognitive behavioral) method is superior to supernaturalism; that training in ‘sacredness’ by ‘church lesson, ritual, and oath’ is superior to any other method available to us because unlike schools it involves the whole family; that the model of jesus is excellent for teaching optimum cooperation; that the natural law can be taught in church – because the church advocated it; that it can be taught with sacredness not supernaturalism; and that the church did a much better job of educating the people than the state. I think these things are almost impossible to argue with. This is a very non-supernatural method of achieving christian ends. But it preserves the church(es) as the center of civil society and restores via-positiva to the moral discipline and limits the state to via-negativa actions. Thereby ending the means by which our civilization has been undermined.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544234280 Timestamp) CONTRA WEINSTEIN VS DAWKINS I would love to have this debate because the alternative is that while we have a natural neurological demand for stories (frames) the world has solved for the satisfaction of demand, and one can solve for the satisfaction of that demand by a host of means – some of which have entirely positive externalities, and some of which have entirely negative externalities. Some of which are in fact eugenic, and some of which are in fact dysgenic – a disease, or cancer. In other words, we SURVIVE some religions, but those religions that we survive appear to have been reproductively successful for that which does not lead to ends that put our survival under our CONTROL: domestication. And while a relativist might say ‘well evolution doesn’t make that distinction’ – saying so would be incompatible with (a) self determination of group or man, (b) the evidence that we achieve what we do through self and other ‘domestication’, or (c) that those who achieve the most domestication are responsible for dragging mankind out of his animal condition into his human rational condition with which he control his destiny (survival), in a universe arguably hostile to (costly) sentient life.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1544234280 Timestamp) CONTRA WEINSTEIN VS DAWKINS I would love to have this debate because the alternative is that while we have a natural neurological demand for stories (frames) the world has solved for the satisfaction of demand, and one can solve for the satisfaction of that demand by a host of means – some of which have entirely positive externalities, and some of which have entirely negative externalities. Some of which are in fact eugenic, and some of which are in fact dysgenic – a disease, or cancer. In other words, we SURVIVE some religions, but those religions that we survive appear to have been reproductively successful for that which does not lead to ends that put our survival under our CONTROL: domestication. And while a relativist might say ‘well evolution doesn’t make that distinction’ – saying so would be incompatible with (a) self determination of group or man, (b) the evidence that we achieve what we do through self and other ‘domestication’, or (c) that those who achieve the most domestication are responsible for dragging mankind out of his animal condition into his human rational condition with which he control his destiny (survival), in a universe arguably hostile to (costly) sentient life.