Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • IDEOLOGY VS PHILOSOPHY VS TRUTH Ideology: internally inconsistent and incomplete

    IDEOLOGY VS PHILOSOPHY VS TRUTH

    Ideology: internally inconsistent and incomplete narrative for the purpose of inspiring action necessary to seize power in order to alter the status quo.

    Philosophy: internally consistent if incomplete method of producing decidability for the purpose of obtaining an end by reason and argument.

    Truth: internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally articulated system of decidability REGARDLESS of philosophy, ideology, or preference.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 10:25:00 UTC

  • CURT: WHAT ARE JUVENILIZATION, NEOTENY, AND PEDOMORPHISM? —“What is juveniliza

    CURT: WHAT ARE JUVENILIZATION, NEOTENY, AND PEDOMORPHISM?

    —“What is juvenilization?”—

    Look up Paedomorphism and Neoteny: selection for immaturity. The same way we select for immaturity and produce dogs from wolves, we produce white civlization and chinese civlization by selection for immaturity.

    In different regions of the globe, there is a greater advantage to fast maturity due to the fragility of the young and the high incidences of mortality. In other reasons there is no advantage to fast maturity and selection for juvenile traits is not a disadvantage. the same applies for simple and complex social orders.

    Juvenilizatoin is nearly impossible for africans because of the disease gradient in their region, and a bit harder in the other hot climates for similar reasons.

    If you select for Neoteny you will get a big head, a smaller body, and finer facial features. If you do not you will get smaller heads, and stronger facial features.

    As we can see in our ape cousins, humans evolved from prior states primarily through neoteny, which gave us higher heat dissipation, which gave us our most important (and often uncredited) advantage: we can form a pack using pointy-things, and run-down any life form on earth. We cannot run fastest but we can run longer than any other life form. We also gained time. time to ‘consider’. And with consideration time to judge between impulse and reason.

    Once we developed modern humans (all apes are white by the way, and blackness is an adaptation to sun exposure on the skin), we could then adapt modern humans to environments – some assisting us in further neoteny, and others in surviving hostile environments. Some bigger some smaller. Some with deeper maturity some with less. Some more social some less social – and so on.

    In other words, yes, some subraces are far more ‘advanced’ genetically than others. and some are not very advanced at all.

    But the fact remains that all races consist of a distribution, and there is substantial overlap. So the principle issue is kin selection given the distributon of the subrace. In other words, we always act as kin, and kin require norms that suit the supermajority in the center of the distribution, and this is the problem of conflictd between peoples with different distributions.

    You don’t see problems with east asians and whites.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-09 03:50:00 UTC

  • Logical=Internally Consistent, Empirical=Correlative(Correspondent), Operational

    Logical=Internally Consistent, Empirical=Correlative(Correspondent), Operational=Causal, Moral=Reciprocal, Testimonial=Fully-Accounted(all)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-02 18:47:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/870713539287273473

  • PROPOSED FINAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural La

    PROPOSED FINAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW

    The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law)

    Thou shalt not, by word, deed, absence of word or deed, impose or allow the the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly, where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly.

    NOTE:

    Fully understanding this one law may also require:

    1) the knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest.

    2) the definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against *and* have demonstrated an interest.

    3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity.

    4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services.

    If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really).

    This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 19:16:00 UTC

  • AN APHORISM ISN’T AN ARGUMENT, BUT AN INDEX One doesn’t try to make an argument

    AN APHORISM ISN’T AN ARGUMENT, BUT AN INDEX

    One doesn’t try to make an argument via an aphorism, but merely to draw one’s attention to the vehicle by which he may investigate that which he might use as an argument.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 17:37:00 UTC

  • CAN YOU PLEASE DEFINE NATURAL LAW? In short, it’s ‘reciprocity’

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/01/12/definitionnatural-law/CURT: CAN YOU PLEASE DEFINE NATURAL LAW?

    In short, it’s ‘reciprocity’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-30 09:44:00 UTC

  • DOUBLE STANDARDS VIOLATE RECIPROCITY A double standard in reciprocity is the equ

    DOUBLE STANDARDS VIOLATE RECIPROCITY

    A double standard in reciprocity is the equivalent of a contradiction in logic. Or conversely, is equivalent to a violation of the test of non-contradiction.

    In other words, there is no difference between a double standard,a fraud and a lie: they are all punishable as violations of Reciprocity.

    Punish the wicked.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-29 11:25:00 UTC

  • Butch just reminded me of the difference between classes and castes. – Classes a

    Butch just reminded me of the difference between classes and castes.

    – Classes are meritocratically rotatable, and castes aren’t.

    – Classes hold biases and ideologies, and castes philosophies and laws

    Hmm… I need to do more writing on this because while I”ve made the point in the past that our vertical classes (casts) are force/gossip/remuneration, and I’ve made the point that each of our casts uses different methods of argument (law/history, religion, philosophy), I haven’t given enough teatment to the western class vs the indian/south american caste system.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-29 09:25:00 UTC

  • NATURAL LAW IS DESCRIPTIVE NOT NORMATIVE —Natural law dictates what WILL happe

    NATURAL LAW IS DESCRIPTIVE NOT NORMATIVE

    —Natural law dictates what WILL happen, not what should or ought to happen. Natural law says, “You will respect reciprocity or bad things will happen to you.” This is no different than saying, “you will respect gravity or bad things will happen to you.” There is no ought in either case. It’s just a description not a proposition. —Jonathan Black

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-28 14:33:00 UTC

  • DEFINITION: INTELLIGENCE The rate at which one adapts to new information that in

    DEFINITION: INTELLIGENCE

    The rate at which one adapts to new information that increasingly depends upon predicate information to extend perception allowing comparisons and decisions of that which is increasingly closed to direct perception.

    Ergo, the rate at which we acquire and adapt to increasingly abstract general and specific rules of the universe.

    Ergo, how long will it take you and how many repetitions to master an idea that is currently beyond your comprehension.

    For some of us merely hearing it the first time causes us to organize our thoughts and ideas in moments. For others they take much longer, and for some they cannot really grasp what is beyond physical repetition.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 13:39:00 UTC