Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • THE MEANING OF “SACRED” Recent political events have brought to the fore, discou

    THE MEANING OF “SACRED” Recent political events have brought to the fore, discourse on the sacred. But what does the word ‘sacred’ mean? It means a total prohibition on privatization of the commons, or socialization of losses into the commons, in display, word, and deed. In other words, you have zero rights to those commons, zero rights in those commons, and you benefit from those commons precisely because you have no rights to them or in them – as does no one else. THE CHURCH Christianity teaches us one unique thing and teaches us one general thing. For christianity, it saturates us in narratives and rituals that ask us to extend kinship love to non kin – on an individual basis (not a political or military). It asks us to eliminate hatred from the human heart. This just happens to be the optimum cooperative strategy: exhausting investment in cooperation before engaging in retaliation, and when engaging in retaliation doing so out of necessity, and without emotion. The church, temple, or ritual experience teaches us sacredness: that there are conditions under which we have no rights of expression: in display, word, or deed. It teaches us Agency over ourselves. Those capable of agency can be taught. Those who lack agency over themselves demonstrate that they are a danger to the rest. And as most of us recall, as children, adhering to ritual in church for a single hour once a week is an exercise in self discipline that even the most well intentioned may struggle with. THE POLITY We have seen the total destruction of the sacred in pursuit avoiding the effort of developing agency over the self – such that we learn to fast, learn to constrain our actions, our minds, our words, and our displays. And this is because like the parable of the boiling frog, we cannot sense the intertemporal in the moment or even in our lives. Even if we can sense the consequences of our failure to pay the high cost (tax) of developing agency, and the sacred as one more kind of fitness. Physical Fitness (the body) Mental Fitness (mindfulness) Emotional Fitness (Sacredness) Social Fitness (Manners, ethics, morals, traditions, Rituals) Economic Fitness (the skills of measurement) Political Fitness (the natural law)

  • THE MEANING OF “SACRED” Recent political events have brought to the fore, discou

    THE MEANING OF “SACRED” Recent political events have brought to the fore, discourse on the sacred. But what does the word ‘sacred’ mean? It means a total prohibition on privatization of the commons, or socialization of losses into the commons, in display, word, and deed. In other words, you have zero rights to those commons, zero rights in those commons, and you benefit from those commons precisely because you have no rights to them or in them – as does no one else. THE CHURCH Christianity teaches us one unique thing and teaches us one general thing. For christianity, it saturates us in narratives and rituals that ask us to extend kinship love to non kin – on an individual basis (not a political or military). It asks us to eliminate hatred from the human heart. This just happens to be the optimum cooperative strategy: exhausting investment in cooperation before engaging in retaliation, and when engaging in retaliation doing so out of necessity, and without emotion. The church, temple, or ritual experience teaches us sacredness: that there are conditions under which we have no rights of expression: in display, word, or deed. It teaches us Agency over ourselves. Those capable of agency can be taught. Those who lack agency over themselves demonstrate that they are a danger to the rest. And as most of us recall, as children, adhering to ritual in church for a single hour once a week is an exercise in self discipline that even the most well intentioned may struggle with. THE POLITY We have seen the total destruction of the sacred in pursuit avoiding the effort of developing agency over the self – such that we learn to fast, learn to constrain our actions, our minds, our words, and our displays. And this is because like the parable of the boiling frog, we cannot sense the intertemporal in the moment or even in our lives. Even if we can sense the consequences of our failure to pay the high cost (tax) of developing agency, and the sacred as one more kind of fitness. Physical Fitness (the body) Mental Fitness (mindfulness) Emotional Fitness (Sacredness) Social Fitness (Manners, ethics, morals, traditions, Rituals) Economic Fitness (the skills of measurement) Political Fitness (the natural law)

  • THE MEANING OF “SACRED” Recent political events have brought to the fore, discou

    THE MEANING OF “SACRED”

    Recent political events have brought to the fore, discourse on the sacred. But what does the word ‘sacred’ mean?

    It means a total prohibition on privatization of the commons, or socialization of losses into the commons, in display, word, and deed.

    In other words, you have zero rights to those commons, zero rights in those commons, and you benefit from those commons precisely because you have no rights to them or in them – as does no one else.

    THE CHURCH

    Christianity teaches us one unique thing and teaches us one general thing.

    For christianity, it saturates us in narratives and rituals that ask us to extend kinship love to non kin – on an individual basis (not a political or military). It asks us to eliminate hatred from the human heart. This just happens to be the optimum cooperative strategy: exhausting investment in cooperation before engaging in retaliation, and when engaging in retaliation doing so out of necessity, and without emotion.

    The church, temple, or ritual experience teaches us sacredness: that there are conditions under which we have no rights of expression: in display, word, or deed. It teaches us Agency over ourselves.

    Those capable of agency can be taught. Those who lack agency over themselves demonstrate that they are a danger to the rest. And as most of us recall, as children, adhering to ritual in church for a single hour once a week is an exercise in self discipline that even the most well intentioned may struggle with.

    THE POLITY

    We have seen the total destruction of the sacred in pursuit avoiding the effort of developing agency over the self – such that we learn to fast, learn to constrain our actions, our minds, our words, and our displays.

    And this is because like the parable of the boiling frog, we cannot sense the intertemporal in the moment or even in our lives. Even if we can sense the consequences of our failure to pay the high cost (tax) of developing agency, and the sacred as one more kind of fitness.

    Physical Fitness (the body)

    Mental Fitness (mindfulness)

    Emotional Fitness (Sacredness)

    Social Fitness (Manners, ethics, morals, traditions, Rituals)

    Economic Fitness (the skills of measurement)

    Political Fitness (the natural law)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-20 09:21:00 UTC

  • Defining “Philosophy”

    DEFINING “PHILOSOPHY” I define philosophy as the search for decidability given an objective or set of objectives. (preferences and goods) I define truth as the search for decidability independent of objective or set of objectives. (truth) I define science as the use of instrumentation both logical and physical to create measurements and systems of measurement, that reduce reality to that which we can perceive, compare, decide, and act upon: reduce the imperceptible to to analogy to experience. In practice philosophers have done as much bad (marx, plato, buddha, kant, Abraham, Muhammed) as they have done good (Confucius, Aristotle, bacon, newton, smith, hume). So it is possible to separate the techniques of those philosophers who have caused harm from those who have created good. And that difference is in conflationary prose(fiction) vs deflationary prose (measurement). Or put differently, those people who write literature, and those people who write religion(conflating law and wisdom lit), from those people who and those people who write science – that which is simply true whether we like it or not. If we launder philosophy of fictions and deceits, then philosophy and science differ only in that science via negative tells us what can and cannot be done, and philosophy via positive suggests how to integrate new knowledge into the current network of truths, goods, preferences, and the decidability of each, by reorganization of categories (Names), relations, and values to take advantage of that new knowledge. Unfortunately, truth is beneficial for all indirectly, but falsehood is beneficial for many directly. In other words, we all love our comforting fallacies. (90% of people think they are in the top 10% of employees for example.) We all love to think we are good people but the truth is that a very large percentage of people are detrimental to the society that they live in regardless of their genetic, social, and economic classes. So there will always exist a demand for religion (comforting lies), and literary philosophy (comforting fiction), as well as for scientific truth (decidability whether comfortable or not). Because there will always be a market demand for self deception, merely comforting utility, and decidability in matters of conflict. One of the most disturbing behaviors I find among all of us who are interested in philosophy, is the attempt to find a substitute for the deceits of religion – but in rational (kantian) instead of supernatural (abrahamic) prose. So I suspect that while religion (mythology/abrahamism-zoroastrianism), literary philosophy (reasoning/plato), logic(justificationism/law), and science (measurement/decidability) are all included under the blanket of ‘philosophy’ (portfolio of decidability), that philosophy will forever forward be the subject of intellectual ridicule just as religion has now become the subject of intellectual ridicule. (And has become categorized with theology and unfunded by universities). But this is because philosophers have not defended the term or the discipline from religion and literature, and preserved it as a domain of logic, science, and law. So how does one define Philosophy? The use of a set of inflationary, ordinary, and deflationary vocabularies and grammars (I combine them into ‘grammars’) including magic, myth, literature, law(rationalism), science, logic, and mathematics, to provide decidability in the satisfaction of preferences, goods, and truths, such that we may act in furtherance of our wants and needs in a universe the causal density of which is beyond our intuition’s abilities to provide us with choice.

  • Defining “Philosophy”

    DEFINING “PHILOSOPHY” I define philosophy as the search for decidability given an objective or set of objectives. (preferences and goods) I define truth as the search for decidability independent of objective or set of objectives. (truth) I define science as the use of instrumentation both logical and physical to create measurements and systems of measurement, that reduce reality to that which we can perceive, compare, decide, and act upon: reduce the imperceptible to to analogy to experience. In practice philosophers have done as much bad (marx, plato, buddha, kant, Abraham, Muhammed) as they have done good (Confucius, Aristotle, bacon, newton, smith, hume). So it is possible to separate the techniques of those philosophers who have caused harm from those who have created good. And that difference is in conflationary prose(fiction) vs deflationary prose (measurement). Or put differently, those people who write literature, and those people who write religion(conflating law and wisdom lit), from those people who and those people who write science – that which is simply true whether we like it or not. If we launder philosophy of fictions and deceits, then philosophy and science differ only in that science via negative tells us what can and cannot be done, and philosophy via positive suggests how to integrate new knowledge into the current network of truths, goods, preferences, and the decidability of each, by reorganization of categories (Names), relations, and values to take advantage of that new knowledge. Unfortunately, truth is beneficial for all indirectly, but falsehood is beneficial for many directly. In other words, we all love our comforting fallacies. (90% of people think they are in the top 10% of employees for example.) We all love to think we are good people but the truth is that a very large percentage of people are detrimental to the society that they live in regardless of their genetic, social, and economic classes. So there will always exist a demand for religion (comforting lies), and literary philosophy (comforting fiction), as well as for scientific truth (decidability whether comfortable or not). Because there will always be a market demand for self deception, merely comforting utility, and decidability in matters of conflict. One of the most disturbing behaviors I find among all of us who are interested in philosophy, is the attempt to find a substitute for the deceits of religion – but in rational (kantian) instead of supernatural (abrahamic) prose. So I suspect that while religion (mythology/abrahamism-zoroastrianism), literary philosophy (reasoning/plato), logic(justificationism/law), and science (measurement/decidability) are all included under the blanket of ‘philosophy’ (portfolio of decidability), that philosophy will forever forward be the subject of intellectual ridicule just as religion has now become the subject of intellectual ridicule. (And has become categorized with theology and unfunded by universities). But this is because philosophers have not defended the term or the discipline from religion and literature, and preserved it as a domain of logic, science, and law. So how does one define Philosophy? The use of a set of inflationary, ordinary, and deflationary vocabularies and grammars (I combine them into ‘grammars’) including magic, myth, literature, law(rationalism), science, logic, and mathematics, to provide decidability in the satisfaction of preferences, goods, and truths, such that we may act in furtherance of our wants and needs in a universe the causal density of which is beyond our intuition’s abilities to provide us with choice.

  • DEFINING “PHILOSOPHY” I define philosophy as the search for decidability given a

    DEFINING “PHILOSOPHY”

    I define philosophy as the search for decidability given an objective or set of objectives. (preferences and goods)

    I define truth as the search for decidability independent of objective or set of objectives. (truth)

    I define science as the use of instrumentation both logical and physical to create measurements and systems of measurement, that reduce reality to that which we can perceive, compare, decide, and act upon: reduce the imperceptible to to analogy to experience.

    In practice philosophers have done as much bad (marx, plato, buddha, kant, Abraham, Muhammed) as they have done good (Confucius, Aristotle, bacon, newton, smith, hume).

    So it is possible to separate the techniques of those philosophers who have caused harm from those who have created good. And that difference is in conflationary prose(fiction) vs deflationary prose (measurement). Or put differently, those people who write literature, and those people who write religion(conflating law and wisdom lit), from those people who and those people who write science – that which is simply true whether we like it or not.

    If we launder philosophy of fictions and deceits, then philosophy and science differ only in that science via negative tells us what can and cannot be done, and philosophy via positive suggests how to integrate new knowledge into the current network of truths, goods, preferences, and the decidability of each, by reorganization of categories (Names), relations, and values to take advantage of that new knowledge.

    Unfortunately, truth is beneficial for all indirectly, but falsehood is beneficial for many directly. In other words, we all love our comforting fallacies. (90% of people think they are in the top 10% of employees for example.) We all love to think we are good people but the truth is that a very large percentage of people are detrimental to the society that they live in regardless of their genetic, social, and economic classes.

    So there will always exist a demand for religion (comforting lies), and literary philosophy (comforting fiction), as well as for scientific truth (decidability whether comfortable or not).

    Because there will always be a market demand for self deception, merely comforting utility, and decidability in matters of conflict.

    One of the most disturbing behaviors I find among all of us who are interested in philosophy, is the attempt to find a substitute for the deceits of religion – but in rational (kantian) instead of supernatural (abrahamic) prose.

    So I suspect that while religion (mythology/abrahamism-zoroastrianism), literary philosophy (reasoning/plato), logic(justificationism/law), and science (measurement/decidability) are all included under the blanket of ‘philosophy’ (portfolio of decidability), that philosophy will forever forward be the subject of intellectual ridicule just as religion has now become the subject of intellectual ridicule. (And has become categorized with theology and unfunded by universities).

    But this is because philosophers have not defended the term or the discipline from religion and literature, and preserved it as a domain of logic, science, and law.

    So how does one define Philosophy? The use of a set of inflationary, ordinary, and deflationary vocabularies and grammars (I combine them into ‘grammars’) including magic, myth, literature, law(rationalism), science, logic, and mathematics, to provide decidability in the satisfaction of preferences, goods, and truths, such that we may act in furtherance of our wants and needs in a universe the causal density of which is beyond our intuition’s abilities to provide us with choice.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-16 10:24:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATIVE VS PROGRESSIVE? WHAT DOES IT MEAN? Eugenic/K/Aristocratic/Male/Conc

    CONSERVATIVE VS PROGRESSIVE? WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

    Eugenic/K/Aristocratic/Male/Concentrate Capital to produce competitive excellence in smaller numbers.

    — vs —

    Dysgenic/r/Socialist/Female/Distribute capital to produce numbers regardless of quality.

    This is the causal difference. I can find no conditions under which this parsimony fails to provide explanatory power.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-13 11:53:00 UTC

  • Important Question:

    If you speak, display, and act in Testimonial Truth, then what is the difference between a Religion, a Philosophy, a Logic, a Science, and a Testimony? A Religion consists of a commitment. A Philosophy a Preference. A Logic and a Science extensions of perception, and Testimony a warranty of due diligence. But then, what is the difference between a Religion of Natural Law ( transcendence, beauty, excellence, truth, agency, sovereignty, reciprocity, markets ) and a Philosophy of natural law, a logic of natural law, the science of natural law, and the testimony under natural law? Well, I don’t see any difference other than that a religion requires a group, an oath, a ritual (cost), a mythos, and the institutional means of intergenerational persistence. Conversely, without a religion what is one’s contractual commitment to others of adherence to natural law? Without others who insures your adherence to natural law in word, display and deed? An intellectual movement, a political movement, and a religious movement, are normatively and legally bound in the current era. One does not debate one’s religion. One merely refuses the alternatives to it. Therein lies our answer. 😉

  • Important Question:

    If you speak, display, and act in Testimonial Truth, then what is the difference between a Religion, a Philosophy, a Logic, a Science, and a Testimony? A Religion consists of a commitment. A Philosophy a Preference. A Logic and a Science extensions of perception, and Testimony a warranty of due diligence. But then, what is the difference between a Religion of Natural Law ( transcendence, beauty, excellence, truth, agency, sovereignty, reciprocity, markets ) and a Philosophy of natural law, a logic of natural law, the science of natural law, and the testimony under natural law? Well, I don’t see any difference other than that a religion requires a group, an oath, a ritual (cost), a mythos, and the institutional means of intergenerational persistence. Conversely, without a religion what is one’s contractual commitment to others of adherence to natural law? Without others who insures your adherence to natural law in word, display and deed? An intellectual movement, a political movement, and a religious movement, are normatively and legally bound in the current era. One does not debate one’s religion. One merely refuses the alternatives to it. Therein lies our answer. 😉

  • IMPORTANT QUESTION: If you speak, display, and act in Testimonial Truth, then wh

    IMPORTANT QUESTION:

    If you speak, display, and act in Testimonial Truth, then what is the difference between a Religion, a Philosophy, a Logic, a Science, and a Testimony?

    A Religion consists of a commitment. A Philosophy a Preference. A Logic and a Science extensions of perception, and Testimony a warranty of due diligence.

    But then, what is the difference between a Religion of Natural Law ( transcendence, beauty, excellence, truth, agency, sovereignty, reciprocity, markets ) and a Philosophy of natural law, a logic of natural law, the science of natural law, and the testimony under natural law?

    Well, I don’t see any difference other than that a religion requires a group, an oath, a ritual (cost), a mythos, and the institutional means of intergenerational persistence. Conversely, without a religion what is one’s contractual commitment to others of adherence to natural law? Without others who insures your adherence to natural law in word, display and deed?

    An intellectual movement, a political movement, and a religious movement, are normatively and legally bound in the current era.

    One does not debate one’s religion. One merely refuses the alternatives to it.

    Therein lies our answer.

    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-10 19:40:00 UTC