Curt Doolittle

Category: Religion, Myth, and Theology

  • Does Wittgenstein’s conclusion on the omnipotence paradoxes put an end to them?-

    –Does Wittgenstein’s conclusion on the omnipotence paradoxes put an end to them?— Wittgenstein did not solve the problem that he sought to, Frege thru Kripke and the followers of Turing (meaning Chomsky) did. (a) there exist no paradoxes, only the application of the rules of formal (deflationary) grammars to colloquial (suggestive) and inflationary (fictional) speech. In other words, there exist no paradoxes that are not simply incomplete sentences (transactions). (b) wittgenstein and russell are correct: in the end, the investment in logic has been a waste of time. It’s nothing but tautology. Because we cannot use the logic of constant semantic relations (language) as we do the logic of constant positional relations (mathematics) to produce proofs. And the Intuitionists were correct: We cannot even do so in mathematics. So what the logics allow us to do is falsify statements, but not prove statements.

  • TRUTH AGAINST THE WORLD by Gabriel Schmeiske Laport Europe’s achievement was des

    TRUTH AGAINST THE WORLD

    by Gabriel Schmeiske Laport

    Europe’s achievement was despite Christianity, not as a result of it.

    Christianity hasn’t preserved, its has subverted, annexed, appropriated in the real sense European culture, into the failing amalgam we see in the Catholicism.

    That’s a fact, and that’s slowly and steadily emerging. From far earlier times, prior to current narratives, as far back as the church scholars themselves such as the Culdeans, but notably since the epoch of L. A. Waddell and co.

    To attempt to imply this is a narrative, rooted in a desire to rewrite history in a manner which portraits Pre-Abrahamic Europe favorably for the purpose of ideological propaganda is laughable.

    Furthermore it’s blatant projection. The historical orthodoxy, which cherry picks from accounts, engages in nepotism, and restricts access, has launched numerous outrageous campaigns of slander, censorship and vandalism to paint a certain historians and their findings as a malicious and subversive. It’s ended numerous careers and even lives. It’s used every fallacious device to sustain itself to this day – from every ivory tower (((Uni)))versity – as a hegemon of History.

    That’s the problem here, that’s why it’s become unpopular and that’s why ultimately, truth is being outed, but I digress.

    Truth against the world.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-15 15:43:00 UTC

  • Truth Against The World

    by Gabriel Schmeiske Laport Europe’s achievement was despite Christianity, not as a result of it. Christianity hasn’t preserved, its has subverted, annexed, appropriated in the real sense European culture, into the failing amalgam we see in the Catholicism. That’s a fact, and that’s slowly and steadily emerging. From far earlier times, prior to current narratives, as far back as the church scholars themselves such as the Culdeans, but notably since the epoch of L. A. Waddell and co. To attempt to imply this is a narrative, rooted in a desire to rewrite history in a manner which portraits Pre-Abrahamic Europe favorably for the purpose of ideological propaganda is laughable. Furthermore it’s blatant projection. The historical orthodoxy, which cherry picks from accounts, engages in nepotism, and restricts access, has launched numerous outrageous campaigns of slander, censorship and vandalism to paint a certain historians and their findings as a malicious and subversive. It’s ended numerous careers and even lives. It’s used every fallacious device to sustain itself to this day – from every ivory tower (((Uni)))versity – as a hegemon of History. That’s the problem here, that’s why it’s become unpopular and that’s why ultimately, truth is being outed, but I digress. Truth against the world.

  • Truth Against The World

    by Gabriel Schmeiske Laport Europe’s achievement was despite Christianity, not as a result of it. Christianity hasn’t preserved, its has subverted, annexed, appropriated in the real sense European culture, into the failing amalgam we see in the Catholicism. That’s a fact, and that’s slowly and steadily emerging. From far earlier times, prior to current narratives, as far back as the church scholars themselves such as the Culdeans, but notably since the epoch of L. A. Waddell and co. To attempt to imply this is a narrative, rooted in a desire to rewrite history in a manner which portraits Pre-Abrahamic Europe favorably for the purpose of ideological propaganda is laughable. Furthermore it’s blatant projection. The historical orthodoxy, which cherry picks from accounts, engages in nepotism, and restricts access, has launched numerous outrageous campaigns of slander, censorship and vandalism to paint a certain historians and their findings as a malicious and subversive. It’s ended numerous careers and even lives. It’s used every fallacious device to sustain itself to this day – from every ivory tower (((Uni)))versity – as a hegemon of History. That’s the problem here, that’s why it’s become unpopular and that’s why ultimately, truth is being outed, but I digress. Truth against the world.

  • THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND MYTH Mythical decidability is more influential

    THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND MYTH

    Mythical decidability is more influential at the bottom and scientific more at the top.

    —“And it is the view, or, at least Curt’s view, because I do not know your views, that Abrahamism has been harmful to Europe. I suppose the palingenetic undercurrent here is that a new history of European greatness must be crafted independently of Ahraminic influences.”—

    This is what I struggle with. While (a) the propertarian program is quite simple: truth produces trust and prosperity (b) one encounters a cavalcade of JUSTIFICATIONARY historical narratives to make excuses for fictionalisms. So how does one combat a justificationary narrative that claims to be empirical, without an equal empirical narrative.

    European excellence and east asian excellence are simply facts as far as I can tell. But as I’ve stated repeatedly, they are facts that are the product of geographical advantage and insulation from the competition in the ‘center’.

    But we cannot choose those things. We can choose between truth and fiction. We can choose the next era’s narrative.

    But – the age old question – how do you teach people during a time of transition that novel truth is better than traditional fictionalism without a history or mythology to contain it?

    Unconscious decidability (is necessary the larger the population grows). The grammar of story (analogy, mythology) is the broadest grammar and semantics available to us.

    Is the tragedy of achilles (the aristocratic warrior masculine hero defending property over the chaos of reality) or the tragedy of jesus (the underclass priestly feminine hero in reaction to the control of property by the aristocracy) a better monopoly myth, or are they faces of the “Janus” of the eternal competition between the strategies of the sexes? And then how does each limit the other? Are these the faces last archetypes, and is competition as calculation (compromise by trade) the ultimate archetype instead? (which is my view).

    Or is the individual actor (Achilles, Jesus) a problem in itself, and are FAMILIES the superior archetypal narrative that provides us with unconscious decidability? In my view families rather than the individual serve as the instrument of policy, while law serves as the instrument of individual limitation. So I prefer a hierarchical pagan world (saints and kings) for the simple reason that it avoids the problems of monopoly.

    Now, add to the problem, that every group has an evolutionary strategy, and uses it to work together whether moral or not. Every group has a ‘superiority’ wing. And must for it to survive competition with other group.

    Science has advanced, and social science not, for the simple reason that juridical (scientific) truth would punish the underclasses, women and the priests, to the benefit of the burgers, engineers, and the warriors.

    and we are in an era (democracy) where gossip – the weapon of women and priests, is powerful – powerful enough to bring about another dark age.

    For no other reason than that we have not yet suppressed falsehood in information as we have in goods and services.

    Anyway.

    I feel caught between Law and Truth on one hand and Myth and HIstory on the other, and it always seems like transcendence between stages requires both.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-15 11:54:00 UTC

  • The Struggle Between Science And Myth

    Mythical decidability is more influential at the bottom and scientific more at the top. —“And it is the view, or, at least Curt’s view, because I do not know your views, that Abrahamism has been harmful to Europe. I suppose the palingenetic undercurrent here is that a new history of European greatness must be crafted independently of Ahraminic influences.”— This is what I struggle with. While (a) the propertarian program is quite simple: truth produces trust and prosperity (b) one encounters a cavalcade of JUSTIFICATIONARY historical narratives to make excuses for fictionalisms. So how does one combat a justificationary narrative that claims to be empirical, without an equal empirical narrative. European excellence and east asian excellence are simply facts as far as I can tell. But as I’ve stated repeatedly, they are facts that are the product of geographical advantage and insulation from the competition in the ‘center’. But we cannot choose those things. We can choose between truth and fiction. We can choose the next era’s narrative. But – the age old question – how do you teach people during a time of transition that novel truth is better than traditional fictionalism without a history or mythology to contain it? Unconscious decidability (is necessary the larger the population grows). The grammar of story (analogy, mythology) is the broadest grammar and semantics available to us. Is the tragedy of achilles (the aristocratic warrior masculine hero defending property over the chaos of reality) or the tragedy of jesus (the underclass priestly feminine hero in reaction to the control of property by the aristocracy) a better monopoly myth, or are they faces of the “Janus” of the eternal competition between the strategies of the sexes? And then how does each limit the other? Are these the faces last archetypes, and is competition as calculation (compromise by trade) the ultimate archetype instead? (which is my view). Or is the individual actor (Achilles, Jesus) a problem in itself, and are FAMILIES the superior archetypal narrative that provides us with unconscious decidability? In my view families rather than the individual serve as the instrument of policy, while law serves as the instrument of individual limitation. So I prefer a hierarchical pagan world (saints and kings) for the simple reason that it avoids the problems of monopoly. Now, add to the problem, that every group has an evolutionary strategy, and uses it to work together whether moral or not. Every group has a ‘superiority’ wing. And must for it to survive competition with other group. Science has advanced, and social science not, for the simple reason that juridical (scientific) truth would punish the underclasses, women and the priests, to the benefit of the burgers, engineers, and the warriors. and we are in an era (democracy) where gossip – the weapon of women and priests, is powerful – powerful enough to bring about another dark age. For no other reason than that we have not yet suppressed falsehood in information as we have in goods and services. Anyway. I feel caught between Law and Truth on one hand and Myth and HIstory on the other, and it always seems like transcendence between stages requires both.

  • The Struggle Between Science And Myth

    Mythical decidability is more influential at the bottom and scientific more at the top. —“And it is the view, or, at least Curt’s view, because I do not know your views, that Abrahamism has been harmful to Europe. I suppose the palingenetic undercurrent here is that a new history of European greatness must be crafted independently of Ahraminic influences.”— This is what I struggle with. While (a) the propertarian program is quite simple: truth produces trust and prosperity (b) one encounters a cavalcade of JUSTIFICATIONARY historical narratives to make excuses for fictionalisms. So how does one combat a justificationary narrative that claims to be empirical, without an equal empirical narrative. European excellence and east asian excellence are simply facts as far as I can tell. But as I’ve stated repeatedly, they are facts that are the product of geographical advantage and insulation from the competition in the ‘center’. But we cannot choose those things. We can choose between truth and fiction. We can choose the next era’s narrative. But – the age old question – how do you teach people during a time of transition that novel truth is better than traditional fictionalism without a history or mythology to contain it? Unconscious decidability (is necessary the larger the population grows). The grammar of story (analogy, mythology) is the broadest grammar and semantics available to us. Is the tragedy of achilles (the aristocratic warrior masculine hero defending property over the chaos of reality) or the tragedy of jesus (the underclass priestly feminine hero in reaction to the control of property by the aristocracy) a better monopoly myth, or are they faces of the “Janus” of the eternal competition between the strategies of the sexes? And then how does each limit the other? Are these the faces last archetypes, and is competition as calculation (compromise by trade) the ultimate archetype instead? (which is my view). Or is the individual actor (Achilles, Jesus) a problem in itself, and are FAMILIES the superior archetypal narrative that provides us with unconscious decidability? In my view families rather than the individual serve as the instrument of policy, while law serves as the instrument of individual limitation. So I prefer a hierarchical pagan world (saints and kings) for the simple reason that it avoids the problems of monopoly. Now, add to the problem, that every group has an evolutionary strategy, and uses it to work together whether moral or not. Every group has a ‘superiority’ wing. And must for it to survive competition with other group. Science has advanced, and social science not, for the simple reason that juridical (scientific) truth would punish the underclasses, women and the priests, to the benefit of the burgers, engineers, and the warriors. and we are in an era (democracy) where gossip – the weapon of women and priests, is powerful – powerful enough to bring about another dark age. For no other reason than that we have not yet suppressed falsehood in information as we have in goods and services. Anyway. I feel caught between Law and Truth on one hand and Myth and HIstory on the other, and it always seems like transcendence between stages requires both.

  • Man as Fictionalist, Jesus as Philosopher, Aristotle as Scientist Man creates th

    Man as Fictionalist, Jesus as Philosopher, Aristotle as Scientist

    Man creates the narrative god in order to produce an authority figure who is an arbitrator between different preferences and customs. We invented custom before religion, and religion before law, and law before science. This narrative takes advantage of a quirk in human psychology that seeks to avoid blame. So neither party in an exchange dominates the other and no party seeks to retaliate against the other, because both are adhering to the demands of an ‘alpha’ ruler.

    Again, God Narratives take advantage of a quirk in our social instincts.

    The problem is, we have passed through mystical, supernatural, theological, rational, legal, and now scientific phases.

    And there is no reason to fail to pay the cost of teaching us to circumvent that quirk than there is to fail the cost of teaching reading, math, and reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-12 08:29:00 UTC

  • Man as Fictionalist, Jesus as Philosopher, Aristotle as Scientist Man creates th

    Man as Fictionalist, Jesus as Philosopher, Aristotle as Scientist Man creates the narrative god in order to produce an authority figure who is an arbitrator between different preferences and customs. We invented custom before religion, and religion before law, and law before science. This narrative takes advantage of a quirk in human psychology that seeks to avoid blame. So neither party in an exchange dominates the other and no party seeks to retaliate against the other, because both are adhering to the demands of an ‘alpha’ ruler. Again, God Narratives take advantage of a quirk in our social instincts. The problem is, we have passed through mystical, supernatural, theological, rational, legal, and now scientific phases. And there is no reason to fail to pay the cost of teaching us to circumvent that quirk than there is to fail the cost of teaching reading, math, and reason.

  • Man as Fictionalist, Jesus as Philosopher, Aristotle as Scientist Man creates th

    Man as Fictionalist, Jesus as Philosopher, Aristotle as Scientist Man creates the narrative god in order to produce an authority figure who is an arbitrator between different preferences and customs. We invented custom before religion, and religion before law, and law before science. This narrative takes advantage of a quirk in human psychology that seeks to avoid blame. So neither party in an exchange dominates the other and no party seeks to retaliate against the other, because both are adhering to the demands of an ‘alpha’ ruler. Again, God Narratives take advantage of a quirk in our social instincts. The problem is, we have passed through mystical, supernatural, theological, rational, legal, and now scientific phases. And there is no reason to fail to pay the cost of teaching us to circumvent that quirk than there is to fail the cost of teaching reading, math, and reason.