Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • UTILITY OF RELIGION By Bill Joslin I think religious utility is easy (He says wi

    UTILITY OF RELIGION

    By Bill Joslin

    I think religious utility is easy (He says with 20-20 hindsight after over a year of participation in king of the hill games hahahah.)

    Its function is to provide graceful failure.

    1. High agency/autonomy: rational/reason, consequentialism, calculation

    2. Mid agency/limited autonomy: rational, emulation, virtue (qualities to emulate)

    3. Low agency/highly limited autonomy : emotion(intuition-impulse), rules (deontic ethics),

    The church (or religions) serve to bridge the bottom two rungs whereby some religions emphasize rules (deontic) and other emphasize emulation (virtues) and have been constructed through a means of ad-hoc post-hoc collection of rules and qualities to emulate that further the particular group’s survivability.

    (A god(s) exists as behaviour-modifying belief that insures survivability)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-06 18:10:00 UTC

  • Joyce Meier’s christianity – which is continuous training in positive psychologi

    Joyce Meier’s christianity – which is continuous training in positive psychological reinforcement of developing emotional agency despite living among classes of people who lack emotional and perhaps executive agency.

    The church experience is the reason religion ‘works’ on us – not the content. The content is retained and put to use because of the church experience. the question is then what content we wish retained.

    We middle and upper classes forget that forget that the lower middle, working, and laboring classes spend a disproportionate time surrounded by frustrated anxious people lacking emotional and often executive agency.

    The more agency you have (the lower your emotional impulse) and the more ability you have( the lower the cost of your learning, problem solving, and self adapting) the easier it is for you to achieve what you want in the world – which (think about this) includes largely avoiding those people that lack emotional and executive agency but entering fields, organizations, and institutions that filter OUT those people that lack emotional and executive agency.

    So for colosseum-christianity that uses PRESENT psychology rather than past mythology is what I mean by converting christianity into a folk religion lacking the institutional dogma.

    So, if we look at this kind of educational christianity, and the stoic method – a more disciplined means of self authoring and both of which produce mindfulness – and once we have achieved that mindfulness, we seek the epicurean rather than hedonistic life for most; and then if we add the heroic narrative for those of us who have all the agency we can possibly use, then we have everything except debts to nature, our heroes, and ancestors such that we persist the gains of their burdens to provide for us.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-06 08:51:00 UTC

  • OUR PROPOSAL IS HARD TO REFUSE P-Constitution, it’s nationalization of consumer

    OUR PROPOSAL IS HARD TO REFUSE

    P-Constitution, it’s nationalization of consumer credit, and its prohibitions on rent seeking, will destroy the entire rent seeking structure of the western economies, preserving only those investments that contribute to production.

    The entire insurance industry, mortgage industry, credit card industry, and any business that makes it’s money from credit rather than production and sale of goods and services will collapse with all the wealth retained by the laboring, working, and middle classes.

    The Concentration of wealth in DC, NY and via New York to Hollywood/LA will vaporize within months. Investors will flee to Assets.

    The prohibition on baiting into hazard, and the institution of involuntary warranty; the liability for testimonial speech in public, restoration of defamation, and the extension of defamation to defense of the commons; and the loss of copyright protection other than creative commons will collapse the media and advertising business as they desperately seek to reform.

    Capital will seek safety first, then alliance with the treasury on investments, and the states will have no alternative than to follow germany, japan, and south korea into competing with china on tech, and depriving china of its market.

    The requirement for right to repair and limits to labor arbitrage will restore european markets.

    The distribution of liquidity directly to citizens to maintain spending, and the deprivation of ‘undesirables’ from this distribution will drive them out of the market.

    This strategy amounts to paying off the middle to destroy the top and bottom.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 19:41:00 UTC

  • OUR PROPOSAL IS HARD TO REFUSE P-Constitution, it’s nationalization of consumer

    OUR PROPOSAL IS HARD TO REFUSE

    P-Constitution, it’s nationalization of consumer credit, and its prohibitions on rent seeking, will destroy the entire rent seeking structure of the western economies, preserving only those investments that contribute to production.

    The entire insurance industry, mortgage industry, credit card industry, and any business that makes it’s money from credit rather than production and sale of goods and services will collapse with all the wealth retained by the laboring, working, and middle classes.

    The Concentration of wealth in DC, NY and via New York to Hollywood/LA will vaporize within months. Investors will flee to Assets.

    The prohibition on baiting into hazard, and the institution of involuntary warranty; the liability for testimonial speech in public, restoration of defamation, and the extension of defamation to defense of the commons; and the loss of copyright protection other than creative commons will collapse the media and advertising business as they desperately seek to reform.

    Capital will seek safety first, then alliance with the treasury on investments, and the states will have no alternative than to follow germany, japan, and south korea into competing with china on tech, and depriving china of its market.

    The requirement for right to repair and limits to labor arbitrage will restore european markets.

    The distribution of liquidity directly to citizens to maintain spending, and the deprivation of ‘undesirables’ from this distribution will drive them out of the market.

    This strategy amounts to paying off the middle to destroy the top and bottom.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 18:10:00 UTC

  • “YOU FRAME EVERYTHING AS ….” (important)(very choice words below) —“You stic

    “YOU FRAME EVERYTHING AS ….”

    (important)(very choice words below)

    —“You stick all issues into a narrow narrative of,, destroying western civilization” and, in my opinion, this makes you overlook any other motivations of movements such as marxism and pomo”—Vlad Popescu

    How long have you been following me? What’s the difference between (a) Judaism > Christianity > Islam and (b) Fundamentalism > Marxism > Feminism > Postmodernism?

    The only difference is the use of the abrahamic method of deceit in the ancient world using sophism and the supernatural, and the abrahamic method of deceit in the modern world, using sophism and pseudoscience.

    Otherwise it’s the same technique: False promise, baiting into hazard.

    Whether you promise the impossible and unwarrantable after death or after revolution is immaterial. They are impossible and unwarrantable.

    I mean, that’s why i’m so hostile to christanity’s use of the abrahamic method – it teaches people not only to be vulnerable to lies, but to apply the technique of lying to their own speech.

    —“Just as I said, you appoint every movement that you dislike(or so it seems) the goal of deceiving. Remember Descartes when he said he often ridiculed other countries’ social norms, but then he thought that his social norms may be seen as ridicule from the outside? Point is, you cannot claim to understand marxism and poststructuralism if you do not dive deep into them, leaving all the prejudices aside. And that s what i love about so called,, western culture “, the tradition of doubting the soundness of your own beliefs. And I agree that Marxism-Leninism(not marxism ÃŪn general) is mistaking by pretending that a voluntary, somewhat forced revolution will bring progress towards a new stage of the economy, surpassing capitalism even though the material conditions of our age cannot allow for that”—Vlad Popescu

    I don’t like them because they’re deceptions – it’s not that I label them as deceptions because I don’t like them.

    You must be new. I don’t opine on whether statements are reciprocal(truthful) or not. statements are truthful (reciprocal) regardless of what opinion I hold.

    Do you know when you’re lying? How much agency do you have? Your children? The women you know? How much agency do they really have? How much are they just imitation machines doing what they have learned to imitate?

    The fact that the abrahamic method of deceit is as advanced a method of deception as the Aristotelian method of testimony, is simply a technical fact.

    The fact that the monotheistic religions’ attacks on market religion and norms (paganism), and the monopoly pseudoscientific attacks on market philosophy and laws, use the same technique of attempting to reverse voluntary markets with involuntary monopoly authority using false promise of life after death or false promise of economic, status, and power rewards after revolution, is a trivial distinction that varies only a subtle alteration of the lie.

    Western civ developed math, reason, science, technology, engineering, medicine, and dragged mankind out of ignorance, hard labor, poverty, suffering, and disease in just a few centuries in the bronze, ancient, and modern worlds.

    And it’s rather obviously due to the degree of correspondence of our metaphysics (realism, naturalism, operationalism, reciprocity) and our group strategy (sovereignty), and the social order of markets in everything, including jury, tripartism, trifunctionalism, and meritocracy.

    So because people vote with their feet, the evidence is pretty clear that they want the result of the western method even if they don’ want to bear the cost of persisting it.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 15:41:00 UTC

  • Tearing Up The Speech – vs The Western Tradition

    “She tore up his speech, which means she challenged him to a duel because she broke the rule of truthful reciprocal trade between sovereigns, limiting us to testimony (facts).”Testimony: Jury > Thang > Senate > Multiple Houses > Public Speech. [T]he western tradition’s first premise is Sovereignty. Every man is his own country, king, legislature, army. We form alliances that insure one another’s sovereignty. In this way we are all equal at the top and seek material achievement – where religions (slaves) are equal at the bottom and seek to minimize material responsibilities. As sovereigns, we appeal to our allies (court) for enforcement of our sovereignty (violations of our interests). This premise does not take cooperation for granted, it takes sovereignty for granted. It requires only that we do not offend (impose costs upon) one another’s demonstrated interests. But that as sovereigns we are free to war whenever we want. And we need submit to no one. In the Western Tradition of Sovereignty, the only reason to tolerate free speech is if it is Testimony (Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Reciprocity) – else violence licensed. Truth is a Commons in the West. Limiting public speech to the Testimonial and Reciprocal licenses VOLUNTARY TRADE (argument) but prohibits INVOLUNTARY HARMS. The duel between sovereign men b/c insult prohibited untruths. We failed to clarify that free speech meant Free Testimony. Westerners intuit these customary laws, but because they are customs are thousands of years old, and we lacked (until now) an operational(scientific) explanation of the western tradition and its reason for our disproportionate success: P(Natural)-law articulates these intuitions. P-Law explains the West and lets us defend it from competing traditions that don’t practice truth-telling, and some of which (Semitic) consist entirely of lying. It may take a few decades for P-Law to take root as the logic of social science, but it will, b/c: Explanatory Power.

  • Tearing Up The Speech – vs The Western Tradition

    “She tore up his speech, which means she challenged him to a duel because she broke the rule of truthful reciprocal trade between sovereigns, limiting us to testimony (facts).”Testimony: Jury > Thang > Senate > Multiple Houses > Public Speech. [T]he western tradition’s first premise is Sovereignty. Every man is his own country, king, legislature, army. We form alliances that insure one another’s sovereignty. In this way we are all equal at the top and seek material achievement – where religions (slaves) are equal at the bottom and seek to minimize material responsibilities. As sovereigns, we appeal to our allies (court) for enforcement of our sovereignty (violations of our interests). This premise does not take cooperation for granted, it takes sovereignty for granted. It requires only that we do not offend (impose costs upon) one another’s demonstrated interests. But that as sovereigns we are free to war whenever we want. And we need submit to no one. In the Western Tradition of Sovereignty, the only reason to tolerate free speech is if it is Testimony (Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Reciprocity) – else violence licensed. Truth is a Commons in the West. Limiting public speech to the Testimonial and Reciprocal licenses VOLUNTARY TRADE (argument) but prohibits INVOLUNTARY HARMS. The duel between sovereign men b/c insult prohibited untruths. We failed to clarify that free speech meant Free Testimony. Westerners intuit these customary laws, but because they are customs are thousands of years old, and we lacked (until now) an operational(scientific) explanation of the western tradition and its reason for our disproportionate success: P(Natural)-law articulates these intuitions. P-Law explains the West and lets us defend it from competing traditions that don’t practice truth-telling, and some of which (Semitic) consist entirely of lying. It may take a few decades for P-Law to take root as the logic of social science, but it will, b/c: Explanatory Power.

  • THE CONSTANCY OF THE WESTERN TRADITION OVER 3500 YEARS – REGARDLESS OF PROPAGAND

    THE CONSTANCY OF THE WESTERN TRADITION OVER 3500 YEARS – REGARDLESS OF PROPAGANDA

    —“Your reified medieval “associations” are products of anarcho-social — not state — covenants”—(((Gamhard McCoy)))

    Bronze age, mediterranean age, continental age, north sea age, atlantic age institutions are continuous products of customary law made necessary by military strategy, given geography, technology, numbers, and have been consistent for at least 3500 years.

    A sovereign man requires the self, a holding requires family, a manor adds employees, a princedom adds counsellors, a state adds bureaucracy, and empire unites states. But they are just names for the same process at increasing scales producing a homogenous hierarchy organized by the same simple rule: sovereignty.

    (I know what you are paraphrasing, but quoting others words says nothing about demonstrated behavior – which is the difference between myth/literature/propaganda and law/science/records. Notice how I only mention literary works in order to illustrate that they are almost universally wrong – which is why the history of thought is either a set of lies by the bottom(theology and mythology) or a set of lies by the middle ( philosophy and literature). Those in power just rule and leave evidence. They have no one to convince.)

    There were only three degrees available to our ancestors, reflecting the two priesthoods: Theology(Social), and Law(Political), and the practical: medicine(Physical).

    Tripartism in everything.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 12:03:00 UTC

  • WESTERN INSTITUTIONS AROUSE OUT OF DISTRIBUTED POWER —“all these [european] in

    WESTERN INSTITUTIONS AROUSE OUT OF DISTRIBUTED POWER

    —“all these [european] institutions arose out of the progressive rationalization of fear and terror — the true bases of the liberalistic *reciprocol state (which actually has no right of resistance, as herr Schmitt knew well)”— (((Gamhard McCoy)))

    THE INSTITUTIONS:

    Sovereignty, Duel, Court, Government, Monarchy.

    1. Constrain one another’s words with the duel.

    2. Constrain one another’s action with the court, having failed to constrain them with threat of the duel.

    3. Constrain a group, or industry with the court of commons for having failed to constrain one another with the court.

    4. Constrain a government with an election for having failed to constrain individuals, groups, or industries.

    5. Constrain a monarchy with a revolution for having failed to constrain the government.

    They did? Conquerors thought in terms of fear and terror when their gods and mythos put them equal to gods, and they conquered everything from Spain to the edge of china?

    Those institutions arose out of the necessity of a small number of professional warriors dependent upon expensive technology (horse, bronze, chariot) that could not pay for a standing army and were dependent upon raising voluntary militia due to the inability of western peoples (horses, cattle, grasslands) to concentrate capital as was possible in the flood river valley civilizations (grains) and pastoralist early neolithic farmers (sheep, grain).

    I don’t make errors. Because I don’t read literature (lies). I study Archaeology, Technology, Economics, Military and Legal records are evidence – literature is fiction and deceit. 😉

    You can’t do that because it would falsify your entire mythology, network of lies, and method of excuses making by lies.

    I know. It’s OK. You can’t help it. It’s genetic.

    ON SCHMITT(GERMANY) IN CONTEXT

    Schimtt btw was following the natural human bias expressed in intellectual tradition of trying to solve the problem of a stable state in a period of necessity of rapid adaptation, when the deliberative (adversarial) model of political (middle class) compromise was insufficiently responsive, and required extraordinary impositions on the investments of stakeholders.

    As is usual for continentals, who cannot manage to escape the dependence upon obedience as a means of avoiding interpersonal conflict, competition, and compromise, it never occurred to Schmidt that the anglo-saxon pre-napoleonic method of political decidability, or it’s roman and it’s greek predecessors, nor its proto-germanic predecessors, nor its western indo-european predecessors placed decisions with the family, the jury/thang, the warriors/nobles, or the chieftain/king depending upon the category of the question at hand. In times of war we give unto generals (dictators), in times of peace we give over to the middle class (republics) in times of windfall we give over to the people (democracy).

    So that the problem is that the pursuit of power by people, middle, nobility, and monarchy were unable to discover (as had the anglos) the means of transferring power dependent upon the condition – and that as warfare transitioned from purely territorial agrarian to trade and industrial economic and ideological warfare, that having failed to articulate their customs as formal law prohibited them from discovering rules for the distribution and concentration of power as context required.

    Schmidtt like all continentals since the french revolution, was another idiot trying to restore the hierarchy of church(political judiciary), judiciary(material judiciary), monarchy(military) burgher(middle class) and labor, without realizing that they were still trying to escape the church and restore traditional rule – but instead were still stuck on countering anglo empiricism and its continuous competition and trying to recreate secular theological harmony.

    The continent is a catastrophe with the french trying to recreate latin church authoritarianism, the germans lost in trying to work away guilt that they should not have for resisting russian jews and french authority with wishful thinking instead of monarchical and traditional restoration, with the slavs understanding completely, and the Russians waiting for revenge.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 11:44:00 UTC

  • TEARING UP THE SPEECH – VS THE WESTERN TRADITION “She tore up his speech means s

    TEARING UP THE SPEECH – VS THE WESTERN TRADITION

    “She tore up his speech means she challenged him to a duel because she broke the rule of truthful reciprocal trade between sovereigns, limiting us to testimony (facts).”

    Testimony: Jury > Thang > Senate > Multiple Houses > Public Speech.

    The western tradition’s first premise is Sovereignty. Every man is his own country, king, legislature, army. We form alliances that insure one another’s sovereignty. In this way we are all equal at the top, and seek material achievement – where religions (slaves) are equal at the bottom and seek to minimize material responsibilities. As sovereigns we appeal to our allies (court) for enforcement of our sovereignty (violations of our interests).

    This premise does not take cooperation for granted, it takes sovereignty for granted. It requires only that we do not offend (impose costs upon) one another’s demonstrated interests. But that as sovereigns we are free to war whenever we want. And we need submit to no one.

    In the Western Tradition of Sovereignty, the only reason to tolerate free speech is if it is Testimony (Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Reciprocity) – else violence licensed.

    Truth is a Commons in the West. Limiting public speech to the Testimonial and Reciprocal licenses VOLUNTARY TRADE (argument) but prohibits INVOLUNTARY HARMS. The duel between sovereign men b/c insult prohibited untruths. We failed to clarify that free speech meant Free Testimony.

    Westerners intuit these customary laws, but because they are customs are thousands of years old, and we lacked (until now) an operational(scientific) explanation of the western tradition and its reason for our disproportionate success: P(Natural)-law articulates these intuitions.

    P-Law explains the West, and lets us defend it from competing traditions that don’t practice truth telling, and some of which (Semitic) consist entirely of lying. It may take a few decades for P-Law to take root as the logic of social science, but it will, b/c: Explanatory Power.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 10:32:00 UTC