Curt Doolittle

Category: Religion, Myth, and Theology

  • I love sitting in Church. I love singing in church. I love dressing up for churc

    I love sitting in Church. I love singing in church. I love dressing up for church. But, can you imagine if instead of preaching babylonian mysticism and socialist propaganda, the ‘priest’ gave lessons in history that related to today, and posed questions about what we should do? What if instead of one-ness, we heard from the four corners of the reproductive distribution? Telling stories of the lives of heroes and saints?

    Meaning:

    1 Aristocracy, military, militia, and law.

    2 Treasury, finance, banking, entrepreneurship

    3 Science, Technology, Craftsmanship and Labor

    4 The Commons, Family, Nurture, Medicine

    Now, a church or temple should always speak in historical analogy. Never directly addressing the current era, and drawing the mind’s eye across the centuries.

    That is a church I would love to go to: one I would learn from from.

    (BTW – the whole catholic, sit, kneel, stand thing. I’ve been doing it all my life and I still have no idea when we are supposed to do each. And I hate the whole vatican ii thing. I hate the shake-hands thing. It was cool before. I remember it. I thought the hippies had taken over the church. It seemed ‘sacrilegious’. Because it was.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-16 02:18:00 UTC

  • Priest’s Sermon, or the Hangman’s Noose?

    http://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/666145224457134080/photo/1/large?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=666145224457134080The Priest’s Sermon, or the Hangman’s Noose? https://t.co/gzi7rrrSS1

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-16 01:46:00 UTC

  • THE TECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF RELIGIONS The technical properties of a religion are

    THE TECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF RELIGIONS

    The technical properties of a religion are rules or norms, and a set of (costly) rituals, and a mythology, that together provide a means of people to collect in numbers safely, and feel the safety in numbers.

    There are really three properties of religions, and all religions use these properties differently. I tend to represent them as a triangle, saying that different approaches emphasize one or more of the properties.

    1) Legal Religions – which to some degree the west practices – they contain no mysticism. American judges are fairly close to priests in their devotion to the ‘sacredness’ of the law. (future-looking)

    2) Behavioral Religions contain spirituality – the pack response. Emphasis is on ritual for generating the pack response. Stoicism, Shintoism, and to some degree early buddhism. (past-looking)

    3) Supernatural Religion. The pack response is obtained through the telling of narrative, and the promise of some mystical reward. (escapism).

    In practice most cultures use multiple ‘religions’ for the purpose of creating shared experience, ethos, behavior and trust. We tend to focus on monotheism because the church FORCED us to, because jews force themselves to, and because islam forces its adherents to.

    The function as a hierarchy of intelligence dependent upon the abilities of the population.

    Mythos at the bottom, for Virtue Ethics.

    Rituals in the middle for Deontological Ethics

    Procedures at the top for Teleological Ethics.

    Hence we do see that as IQ increases the religious emphasis increases from the virtue ethic of the young and ignorant, to the ritual ethic of the young adult, to the technical ethic of the mature.

    If one is raised in a religion, It is hard to view religion as a purely ritualistic purely programatic form of education and training. But for all intents and purposes, the function of religious myth is to get you to imagine a ‘model’ by which to made decisions; to practice costly rituals with others in order to invoke the submission of the pack response; and to teach you traditional rules of the social order as if they are physical properties of objective reality (metaphysical) rather than merely a group evolutionary strategy that has been demonstrated to work at perpetuating the population.

    If you told a mathematician he had to forget math he would say “well I don’t know how to do that – or think otherwise”, and the religious person says the same.

    That is why these things work.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-15 05:58:00 UTC

  • Why do I sentimentally agree with catholic intellectuals – in fact, we are all v

    Why do I sentimentally agree with catholic intellectuals – in fact, we are all very similar – but I do not see mysticism, god, or anything else non-factual as meaningful.

    I know that catholicism asks us to think universally. I know that it asks us to think intertemporally. I know that it forces us to think honestly. I know that the long history of the church matters a great deal.

    But maybe I know the alternatives, and that the same effect is achieved by multiple means?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-14 11:22:00 UTC

  • Do you think this would have happened if the Templars were still defending europ

    Do you think this would have happened if the Templars were still defending europa? Friday the 13th: Templars Day.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 19:56:00 UTC

  • So is this true: islam is not a ‘religion of peace’ it is a religion of stagnati

    So is this true: islam is not a ‘religion of peace’ it is a religion of stagnation which reduces conflict by eliminating change?

    Isn’t it true that the only reason the Arabs could expand is because the Byzantines and the Selucid’s (both of whom were indo-european) had exhausted one another in wars? The Arab world was not transformed the Selucid and byzantine were occupied.

    Isn’t it true that aggression and lower intelligence and higher reproduction defeat lower reproduction and productivity and higher intelligence?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 17:22:00 UTC

  • What Constitutes a Truthful Religion?

    (important) [I] have a soul. I can observe it through introspection. It is a full accounting of my sins, offset by a selective accounting of my acts of charity. I know the balance of that account. We all know the balance of that account – even if we fear to look at it. The chief value of an all-knowing god, is as a psychological device that assists us in looking at the transactions in, and balance of, that account, without any ability to lie to ourselves. The chief value of confession is to publicly admit this balance, and use peer pressure to eliminate any deficit. Whether that soul is eternal is not a question – of course it is. We can commit no sin or perform no charity without the existence of others to sin or perform charity against. Our actions leave a permanent record in the universe. We live on eternally in the changes to the universe that we have made by our actions. That is what acting means: to alter the course of events. Each action does so. That our simple human minds need to anthropomorphize these ideas so that they are easier for the ignorant, dim, and fearful to grasp is no more surprising than that children need parables, myths, legends, and fairy tales to grasp basic concepts using models for concepts otherwise beyond their experience.

    [pullquote]the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests.[/pullquote]

    This scientific view of one’s soul is not without what humans consider supernatural properties however. It is increasingly clear that we do not understand the structure of matter, space, and time, and that our perception of matter, space, and time, is limited to that in which we can act. If even some small part of our understanding of the universe is true, then it is entirely possible that it matters not only how we act, but how we think, and what we believe, and how others remember us. Given that the worst case argument we can construct about supernatural forces is to say “I do not know, but it places no cost upon me either way,” or that “I choose to act as if it is so because there is no penalty for doing so, but a benefit for doing so”, “and there are benefits to psychological rituals for all mankind”, we have enough justification for the conceptual use of one or more all knowing gods that assists our minds in confronting a full accounting of our actions, and the presumption of the possibility that collective ritual may in fact alter the structure of not only our minds, but the minds of others, and potentially the structure of the universe in beneficial ways. Moreover, since it is increasingly clear that we are not cognizant of the power of our genes, our intuitions and our biases upon our minds and actions, it is not clear that there is an as yet unrecognized equivalent of a calculating system of some sort – ostensibly unaware – produced by the actions, thoughts and memories of all of us. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. But without knowing I will not fail to pay the cost of perpetuating what has worked for all of human history: rituals that bind us to one another through invocation of the submission-to-the-pack response ever present in our brain stems. Our understanding is overrated, because it is extremely limited. So in these cases I prefer to do what is beneficial for men and man, assuming that the recipe we follow for collective religious ritual is causing us to produce some product that I do not understand, rather than to write it off as a psychological crutch or weakness. It’s just science. How we justify this particular thing as purely scientific and useful, rational, psychological or mystical is not important to me. These are just languages for different levels of abstraction, all of which describe the same process and its effects. As such I merely prefer the least false set of beliefs, and the most constructive forms of ritual. And those are, from my knowledge: the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • What Constitutes a Truthful Religion?

    (important) [I] have a soul. I can observe it through introspection. It is a full accounting of my sins, offset by a selective accounting of my acts of charity. I know the balance of that account. We all know the balance of that account – even if we fear to look at it. The chief value of an all-knowing god, is as a psychological device that assists us in looking at the transactions in, and balance of, that account, without any ability to lie to ourselves. The chief value of confession is to publicly admit this balance, and use peer pressure to eliminate any deficit. Whether that soul is eternal is not a question – of course it is. We can commit no sin or perform no charity without the existence of others to sin or perform charity against. Our actions leave a permanent record in the universe. We live on eternally in the changes to the universe that we have made by our actions. That is what acting means: to alter the course of events. Each action does so. That our simple human minds need to anthropomorphize these ideas so that they are easier for the ignorant, dim, and fearful to grasp is no more surprising than that children need parables, myths, legends, and fairy tales to grasp basic concepts using models for concepts otherwise beyond their experience.

    [pullquote]the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests.[/pullquote]

    This scientific view of one’s soul is not without what humans consider supernatural properties however. It is increasingly clear that we do not understand the structure of matter, space, and time, and that our perception of matter, space, and time, is limited to that in which we can act. If even some small part of our understanding of the universe is true, then it is entirely possible that it matters not only how we act, but how we think, and what we believe, and how others remember us. Given that the worst case argument we can construct about supernatural forces is to say “I do not know, but it places no cost upon me either way,” or that “I choose to act as if it is so because there is no penalty for doing so, but a benefit for doing so”, “and there are benefits to psychological rituals for all mankind”, we have enough justification for the conceptual use of one or more all knowing gods that assists our minds in confronting a full accounting of our actions, and the presumption of the possibility that collective ritual may in fact alter the structure of not only our minds, but the minds of others, and potentially the structure of the universe in beneficial ways. Moreover, since it is increasingly clear that we are not cognizant of the power of our genes, our intuitions and our biases upon our minds and actions, it is not clear that there is an as yet unrecognized equivalent of a calculating system of some sort – ostensibly unaware – produced by the actions, thoughts and memories of all of us. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. But without knowing I will not fail to pay the cost of perpetuating what has worked for all of human history: rituals that bind us to one another through invocation of the submission-to-the-pack response ever present in our brain stems. Our understanding is overrated, because it is extremely limited. So in these cases I prefer to do what is beneficial for men and man, assuming that the recipe we follow for collective religious ritual is causing us to produce some product that I do not understand, rather than to write it off as a psychological crutch or weakness. It’s just science. How we justify this particular thing as purely scientific and useful, rational, psychological or mystical is not important to me. These are just languages for different levels of abstraction, all of which describe the same process and its effects. As such I merely prefer the least false set of beliefs, and the most constructive forms of ritual. And those are, from my knowledge: the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • ROLE OF RELIGION IN THE 21st CENTURY – Part I

    [F]OOD FOR THOUGHT: I usually position this question within intellectual history as the sequence: (a) anthropomorphism / narrative oral tradition / hunter gathering / Shamans vs Warriors / Tribalism (b) theism / writing / agrarianism / Temple and Church Bureaucracy vs Warriors / Tribal Unificationism (c) moralism (rationalism) and modernism / printing / capitalism / State/Temple-Merchant-State shared power / State Formation. (d) postmodern propaganda, pseudoscience and innumeracy / mass media, democratic secular socialist humanism / industrialism / State-Academy-Media against Warrior and Merchant Class and absent Temple class / (new world order formation???) (e) scientific / digital zero-distribution-cost / (worldwide search yet unfound???) / information era / (power structure still emerging but swinging toward authoritarian capitalism) / (new order formation – looks like return to higher tribalism? Nationalism?) I agree that ‘religion’ is with us to stay, but religion requires shared belief in a falsehood, for purposes of cooperating and organizing – usually as a resistance movement against human discretion and hubris. We know that religious experience (spirituality) is caused by the pack-response (submission to the pack). We know that religions and cults must be costly for members, to survive their initial members. We know that religions are advantageous for members in establishing limits of rule, moral norms, and metaphysical value judgements. For example, the TED movement is considered by many to be a postmodern church, and each lecture no different from a Sermon from the Pulpit, where technology and will provide the promise of salvation. We know that postmodernism is a religious revolt against the meritocratic unpleasantness of science. We know that evangelical christianity is a revolt against the secular state. (and it works). But where does this lead us? I have been working on this problem for a while now and I am struggling with it. Cheers Curt

  • ROLE OF RELIGION IN THE 21st CENTURY – Part I

    [F]OOD FOR THOUGHT: I usually position this question within intellectual history as the sequence: (a) anthropomorphism / narrative oral tradition / hunter gathering / Shamans vs Warriors / Tribalism (b) theism / writing / agrarianism / Temple and Church Bureaucracy vs Warriors / Tribal Unificationism (c) moralism (rationalism) and modernism / printing / capitalism / State/Temple-Merchant-State shared power / State Formation. (d) postmodern propaganda, pseudoscience and innumeracy / mass media, democratic secular socialist humanism / industrialism / State-Academy-Media against Warrior and Merchant Class and absent Temple class / (new world order formation???) (e) scientific / digital zero-distribution-cost / (worldwide search yet unfound???) / information era / (power structure still emerging but swinging toward authoritarian capitalism) / (new order formation – looks like return to higher tribalism? Nationalism?) I agree that ‘religion’ is with us to stay, but religion requires shared belief in a falsehood, for purposes of cooperating and organizing – usually as a resistance movement against human discretion and hubris. We know that religious experience (spirituality) is caused by the pack-response (submission to the pack). We know that religions and cults must be costly for members, to survive their initial members. We know that religions are advantageous for members in establishing limits of rule, moral norms, and metaphysical value judgements. For example, the TED movement is considered by many to be a postmodern church, and each lecture no different from a Sermon from the Pulpit, where technology and will provide the promise of salvation. We know that postmodernism is a religious revolt against the meritocratic unpleasantness of science. We know that evangelical christianity is a revolt against the secular state. (and it works). But where does this lead us? I have been working on this problem for a while now and I am struggling with it. Cheers Curt