Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Simple Deep Understanding of Operational Language

    (core) (operational language) (or, why you don’t get it at first) Jason asks, “is this sentence correct ePrime?” We probably need to stop using the ePrime reference and simply teach people the steps to transforming fuzzy intuitive language to very clear operational language. The first step is eliminating the Copula (the connector): the verb to-be. This connector says “imply the connection” it does not state the connection. This is how ‘suggestion’ (deceit) is inserted into our otherwise very precise, english language. It’s the basis of all sophism. The second step, which may be necessary to complete the first step requires starting sentences with the subject rather than the actor – and this is what’s probably causing your struggle. P and ePrime ask you to think in terms of actor rather than subject. To put the actor before the subject in composing your “episode”. Thinking in, writing in, speaking in actors, adds a computational cycle, because the more advanced our thinking the more we’re thinking about subjects rather than actors. And the more ‘generalized’ our statement – which means the more masculine and analytic – the more the subject is the basis for context and the less the actor is the basis for content. So yes, operational language is slightly more burdensome, because it is more precise – at least until you habituate it. The Example: –“With the ability to protect it with violent defense, exercised at will, on an individual and group level, “— Change to: —At an individual or group level, [we / they] [can / develop the ability to] protect [it / or restate subject] with violent defense, exercised at will.”— Phrase: 1 – actor 2 – acted upon 3 – consequence So: 1 – Repeat with Collection of Phrases. 2- Producing a Complete sentence. 3- That explicitly states the COMPLETE transformation (Transaction) In other worlds:

    • Actor, Operation, Subject: “John threw the ball (to mark who caught it).”
    • Subject, Actor, Operation: “The ball john threw (to mark who caught it.)”

    and not: Language in operational terms is an accounting system That’s the secret of operational language “full accounting of changes in state”. Phrase (debit) Journal Entry , Phrase (credit) Journal Entry Sentence = Ledger Entry. Paragraph = Income Statement Story = Balance Sheet If you begin to see ‘the grammars’ in everything you will finally understand why P is so powerful … and it will, at some point, horrify you with wonder at it all. Language is a means of measurement. Arithmetic is a very precise language Accounting is just a very precise language. Geometry is another precise language Programming is another precise language P-Law is another precise language P-Testimony is the most precise language possible All language functions as a system of measurement using measurements provided by the human body. and accounting of changes in state in that measurement system. Why? Because the brain does nothing other than detect and predict, changes in state. We can either account well(operational language), or account poorly(ordinary language), or account deceptively (postmodern/feminist language) I hope this helps because it is the summary of the meaning of operational prose. ==== attn: Bill Joslin

  • How Gods Exist and Function

    by Curt Doolittle and Stephen Wells -by Stephen Wells: The mistake in reasoning of those who “give it up to God” is generally one of falsely assuming that any higher power operates like a magic wand. Author Napoleon Hill who spent years studying successful people noted that the spiritual difference of successful over non successful people was that successful people assigned their faith to God to provide solutions for for them to take action on themselves, rather than for God to simply make their problems go away. In short, God was to be found within their own subconscious and expressed by acting on their intuition, which itself was disciplined and directed by conscious thought and continuous action towards a clearly defined goal. -by Curt Doolittle [Y]es, this is the correct(scientific) definition of god. Gods exists as information.That information is trained into your intuitionThat training organizes and filters your intuition.Primarily it prevents self deception or, (and this is true) deception by your genes, old, and middle brains. And for very obvious reasons, anthropomorphizing that information is more effective at extracting truthfulness from your intuition than you are able to do without it – because intuition will let your genes influence you chaotically while anthropomorphized intuition falsifies your intuition (your auto association) to predict how that character would interpret your thoughts. In other words, we can use our social instincts to override our chaotic intuition by creating a framework for truthful prediction. This is pretty obvious once you think it thru. Our bodies and faculties are our only system of measurement. But since we are human and evolved consciousness with enough recursion to predict others’ actions, feelings, thoughts, and wants, we can use other people (archetypes) as systems of measurement as well. Is there a difference between what would god want me to do, what would Jesus want me to do, what would Gandalf or Aristotle, me to do, and what would my grandmother want me to do? No there isn’t other than a god is a proxy for your social order. Systems of measurement to provide a neural economy superior predictive power.

  • How Gods Exist and Function

    by Curt Doolittle and Stephen Wells -by Stephen Wells: The mistake in reasoning of those who “give it up to God” is generally one of falsely assuming that any higher power operates like a magic wand. Author Napoleon Hill who spent years studying successful people noted that the spiritual difference of successful over non successful people was that successful people assigned their faith to God to provide solutions for for them to take action on themselves, rather than for God to simply make their problems go away. In short, God was to be found within their own subconscious and expressed by acting on their intuition, which itself was disciplined and directed by conscious thought and continuous action towards a clearly defined goal. -by Curt Doolittle [Y]es, this is the correct(scientific) definition of god. Gods exists as information.That information is trained into your intuitionThat training organizes and filters your intuition.Primarily it prevents self deception or, (and this is true) deception by your genes, old, and middle brains. And for very obvious reasons, anthropomorphizing that information is more effective at extracting truthfulness from your intuition than you are able to do without it – because intuition will let your genes influence you chaotically while anthropomorphized intuition falsifies your intuition (your auto association) to predict how that character would interpret your thoughts. In other words, we can use our social instincts to override our chaotic intuition by creating a framework for truthful prediction. This is pretty obvious once you think it thru. Our bodies and faculties are our only system of measurement. But since we are human and evolved consciousness with enough recursion to predict others’ actions, feelings, thoughts, and wants, we can use other people (archetypes) as systems of measurement as well. Is there a difference between what would god want me to do, what would Jesus want me to do, what would Gandalf or Aristotle, me to do, and what would my grandmother want me to do? No there isn’t other than a god is a proxy for your social order. Systems of measurement to provide a neural economy superior predictive power.

  • Good and Evil Is a Middle Eastern Not European Concept

    —-“Good and evil were invented in the middle east to facilitate cultural warfare between the middle east and the indians. European religion used chaos and mischief vs order, and our gods were ‘real people’ with real frailties.” – Curt Doolittle —“The concepts “good” and “evil” are actually Indo-European in origin. Etymology dictionaries are useful. Better perhaps to say that our misconceptions about what exactly those terms mean are influenced by Middle Eastern philosophy…”—AunMarie Grooms

    Indo european a language and cultural family of genetically west eurasians of the proto-European, proto-Caucasian, proto-Iranic but NOT proto-turkic post glacial maximum peoples. The proto-caucasians and anatolians appear to have been lost to us. As far as I know, good and evil are indo-iranic not indo european. It’s unlikely that I err. The division between European, iranic, indo-iranic results in European (aristocratic egalitarian and martial), Persian(aristocratic authoritarian and martial), and Hindu( caste, duty-role, and ‘priestly’) pantheons. The argument put forth by others which I got from Karen Armstrong, was that it appears that the north and west europeans developed more so in the corded ware culture(material), and the iranics more in the vedas (spiritual), and that this is largely because etherial religion as we understand it evolved in what we call Mesopotamia-Anatolia or, more precisely, along the euphrates. It’s most likely that religious pantheons developed differently due to differences in indo european ethnicities, and strategies. The west pretty much killed everyone they came in contact with (or at least the males) because the neolithic farmers were not developed enough to resist them. But as the iranic people migrated east to india, then south of the caspian, then west back into Mesopotamia they encountered developed peoples that they had to conquer. So, iranics and indo iranics used hierarchy to rule an compete with others like the indus valley people and the Mesopotamians while europeans maintained aristocratic egalitarianism and didn’t develop authoritarianism until the late roman empire – and even then – they would have been more successful if they’d been much more authoritarian and much less tolerant.

  • Good and Evil Is a Middle Eastern Not European Concept

    —-“Good and evil were invented in the middle east to facilitate cultural warfare between the middle east and the indians. European religion used chaos and mischief vs order, and our gods were ‘real people’ with real frailties.” – Curt Doolittle —“The concepts “good” and “evil” are actually Indo-European in origin. Etymology dictionaries are useful. Better perhaps to say that our misconceptions about what exactly those terms mean are influenced by Middle Eastern philosophy…”—AunMarie Grooms

    Indo european a language and cultural family of genetically west eurasians of the proto-European, proto-Caucasian, proto-Iranic but NOT proto-turkic post glacial maximum peoples. The proto-caucasians and anatolians appear to have been lost to us. As far as I know, good and evil are indo-iranic not indo european. It’s unlikely that I err. The division between European, iranic, indo-iranic results in European (aristocratic egalitarian and martial), Persian(aristocratic authoritarian and martial), and Hindu( caste, duty-role, and ‘priestly’) pantheons. The argument put forth by others which I got from Karen Armstrong, was that it appears that the north and west europeans developed more so in the corded ware culture(material), and the iranics more in the vedas (spiritual), and that this is largely because etherial religion as we understand it evolved in what we call Mesopotamia-Anatolia or, more precisely, along the euphrates. It’s most likely that religious pantheons developed differently due to differences in indo european ethnicities, and strategies. The west pretty much killed everyone they came in contact with (or at least the males) because the neolithic farmers were not developed enough to resist them. But as the iranic people migrated east to india, then south of the caspian, then west back into Mesopotamia they encountered developed peoples that they had to conquer. So, iranics and indo iranics used hierarchy to rule an compete with others like the indus valley people and the Mesopotamians while europeans maintained aristocratic egalitarianism and didn’t develop authoritarianism until the late roman empire – and even then – they would have been more successful if they’d been much more authoritarian and much less tolerant.

  • Motivations for Colonization

    by Scott De Warren If we disambiguate the mediterranean from the northern Atlantic worlds we will find different, though related motivations for colonization. For the Iberian peninsula it was a matter of national survival. As the Atlantic opened up to the world the Netherlands, followed by England set up global trade networks (inspired by previous Portuguese and Spanish success) to build up their national wealth so as to resist Catholic domination (Netherlands eventually split) made possible by Spanish gold and silver from the colonies. Resisting Catholic domination required rapid expansion of mercantilist trade (raw material inputs are imported, high value added outputs are exported) making bases in North America ideal.

  • Motivations for Colonization

    by Scott De Warren If we disambiguate the mediterranean from the northern Atlantic worlds we will find different, though related motivations for colonization. For the Iberian peninsula it was a matter of national survival. As the Atlantic opened up to the world the Netherlands, followed by England set up global trade networks (inspired by previous Portuguese and Spanish success) to build up their national wealth so as to resist Catholic domination (Netherlands eventually split) made possible by Spanish gold and silver from the colonies. Resisting Catholic domination required rapid expansion of mercantilist trade (raw material inputs are imported, high value added outputs are exported) making bases in North America ideal.

  • “Is Public Epistemology In Decline?”

    I’ve been working on the problem since about ’92 and like many things, the curatorial function performed by the top handful of intellectuals alive at any given time is not able to keep pace with the volume of pseudoscience, sophistry, ideology, propaganda, and marketing over the past thirty or more years. This is not the first time there has been a rebellion against science and reason. It happened in the ancient world and resulted in the medieval dark ages. That the rebellion against science and reason is nothing more than a reflection of a rebellion against western evolutionary pressure is less obvious. If not for immigration it appears that we would have succeeded in falsifying the Jewish pseudoscientific counter-enlightenment just as we survived the German Rationalists (kant et all an the german secular theologists) and the French Moralists (Rousseau et al and the French Revolution). The difference being that the Jewish counter enlightenment (exemplified in Cantor-Bohr, Boas-Freud, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Trotsky-Strauss-Kristol, Derrida, Friedan, and ongoing by Krugman-Stiglitz-DeLong et al ) is so broadly based, covers the entire scope of the disciplines, and is united in the past century, just as were Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the ancient world, to resist Evolution. Or stated more simply, the current debate remains the same, which is dysgenic female equalitarian strategies, vs the eugenic, male, hierarchical strategies. In other words, both the ancient world religions and the modern world ‘cults’ of pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial, are united in a single purpose, and that is the suppression of evolution by competitive, hierarchical, market meritocracies, of any kind, whether genetic (hindu), bureaucratic (chinese), or technical (european). So in summary, (a) democracy combined with underclass or out-class immigration has created continued market demand for falsehoods. (b) resistance to the increase in market demand for falsehoods has created market demand for counter-arguments. (c) monopoly democracy (selection of priorities for the application of scarce resources) is incapable of suppression the increase in demand for falsehoods. (d) the Finance, State, Academy, Media, Entertainment, Advertising industries benefit from the the sale and distribution of these falsehoods. So yes, market demand for falsehood is increasing market demand for conflict, which cannot be resolved due to the cheap cost and incentives for the distribution of falsehoods, and suppressed the production and distribution of truths. And that is why yes, intelligence, education, the quality of information, and the curatorial function of intellectuals have all declined. Either you have a eugenic polity whose wealth is limited to productivity independent of increases in population, or you will have a dysgenic polity whose accumulated genetic, behavioral, cultural, institutional, territorial capital are consumed by a small number of generations. This isn’t a novel theory. The cycles of rise and decline have been studied by multiple historians for thousands of years. The chinese found a method of persistence through vicious prosecution of criminals, intolerant colonization and forcible integration, and perhaps most importantly agrarian and financial eugenics that over three generations continuously cull family after family from the reproductive pool. America was founded by eugenicists -they just didn’t use that terminology. They used ‘people of good character’. And we maintained the eugenic movement through the first world war. It was the intentional effort of the post war eastern european ashkenazi that worked full time every day to underming every single institution. Conspiracy? No It’s their way of life. Just like islam is the muslim way of life. Just like sovereignty and markets are the european way of life. Just like harmony, hierarchy and bureaucracy are the Chinese way of life.

  • “Is Public Epistemology In Decline?”

    I’ve been working on the problem since about ’92 and like many things, the curatorial function performed by the top handful of intellectuals alive at any given time is not able to keep pace with the volume of pseudoscience, sophistry, ideology, propaganda, and marketing over the past thirty or more years. This is not the first time there has been a rebellion against science and reason. It happened in the ancient world and resulted in the medieval dark ages. That the rebellion against science and reason is nothing more than a reflection of a rebellion against western evolutionary pressure is less obvious. If not for immigration it appears that we would have succeeded in falsifying the Jewish pseudoscientific counter-enlightenment just as we survived the German Rationalists (kant et all an the german secular theologists) and the French Moralists (Rousseau et al and the French Revolution). The difference being that the Jewish counter enlightenment (exemplified in Cantor-Bohr, Boas-Freud, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Trotsky-Strauss-Kristol, Derrida, Friedan, and ongoing by Krugman-Stiglitz-DeLong et al ) is so broadly based, covers the entire scope of the disciplines, and is united in the past century, just as were Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the ancient world, to resist Evolution. Or stated more simply, the current debate remains the same, which is dysgenic female equalitarian strategies, vs the eugenic, male, hierarchical strategies. In other words, both the ancient world religions and the modern world ‘cults’ of pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial, are united in a single purpose, and that is the suppression of evolution by competitive, hierarchical, market meritocracies, of any kind, whether genetic (hindu), bureaucratic (chinese), or technical (european). So in summary, (a) democracy combined with underclass or out-class immigration has created continued market demand for falsehoods. (b) resistance to the increase in market demand for falsehoods has created market demand for counter-arguments. (c) monopoly democracy (selection of priorities for the application of scarce resources) is incapable of suppression the increase in demand for falsehoods. (d) the Finance, State, Academy, Media, Entertainment, Advertising industries benefit from the the sale and distribution of these falsehoods. So yes, market demand for falsehood is increasing market demand for conflict, which cannot be resolved due to the cheap cost and incentives for the distribution of falsehoods, and suppressed the production and distribution of truths. And that is why yes, intelligence, education, the quality of information, and the curatorial function of intellectuals have all declined. Either you have a eugenic polity whose wealth is limited to productivity independent of increases in population, or you will have a dysgenic polity whose accumulated genetic, behavioral, cultural, institutional, territorial capital are consumed by a small number of generations. This isn’t a novel theory. The cycles of rise and decline have been studied by multiple historians for thousands of years. The chinese found a method of persistence through vicious prosecution of criminals, intolerant colonization and forcible integration, and perhaps most importantly agrarian and financial eugenics that over three generations continuously cull family after family from the reproductive pool. America was founded by eugenicists -they just didn’t use that terminology. They used ‘people of good character’. And we maintained the eugenic movement through the first world war. It was the intentional effort of the post war eastern european ashkenazi that worked full time every day to underming every single institution. Conspiracy? No It’s their way of life. Just like islam is the muslim way of life. Just like sovereignty and markets are the european way of life. Just like harmony, hierarchy and bureaucracy are the Chinese way of life.

  • Advocacy of Capitalism to Destroy National Solidarity

    by Predmetsky Rosenborg Marx advocated capitalism as a necessary prerequisite to socialism because it would destroy national solidarity as a means of setting the stage for international working class solidarity. As far back as Bakunin, you see him arguing that “communism” would consist of an avowedly marxist elite deciding they like capitalism after all and keeping the money for themselves. Props to Scott De Warren for pointing this out earlier

    The Capitalism vs Socialism vs Marxism axis is of course the antithesis of the european rule-of-law(no discretion) vs rule-by-legislation (contractual discretion) vs rule by command(authoritarian discretion) axis.   Under european rule of law we produce nation states practicing rule of law that limit capitalism’s externalities. Under Jewish capitalism, we produced globalism that does not limit capitalisms externalities – but profits from it. Under jewish communism we produce globalism that does not limit internalities – it is purely despotic. There are two questions.  (a) the organization of decision making: rule of law (markets), legislation(markets and commons), or command(commons or extraction),  (b) the use of proceeds: retention (reinvestment), commons production (reinvestment in commons), or redistribution (consumption and dysgenia)