(FB 1546303804 Timestamp) um. …. Shakespeare’s English is early-modern English, not old English (Anglo-Saxon) or Middle English; The difference between early modern and modern english is (a) pronunciation was pretty gaelic-sounding, and (b) quite a few words in early modern have fallen out of use. Middle English ( 1100-1500) The Lord governeth me, and no thing schal faile to me. In the place of posture there he hath set me. He nurschide me on the water of refreischyng. Early Modern English (King James Bible, 1611) The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green postures. He leadeth me beside the still waters. Major historical Periods of the English Language 1 – Old English AD 449- AD 1066 2 – Middle English 1066-1509 3 – Early Modern English 1509-1755 4 – Present Day English 1755-present Old English Her for se here of East Englum ofer Humbremuþan to Eoforwicceastre on Norþhymbre, ond þær wæs micel ungeþuærnes þære þeode betweox him selfum, ond hie hæfdun hiera cyning aworpenne Osbryht, ond ungecyndne cyning underfengon Ãllan; ond hie late on geare to þam gecirdon þæt hie wiþ þone here winnende wærun, ond hie þeah micle fierd gegadrodon, ond þone here sohton æt Eoforwicceastre, ond on þa ceastre bræcon, ond hie sume inne wurdon, ond þær was ungemetlic wæl geslægen Norþanhymbra, sume binnan, sume butan; ond þa cyningas begen ofslægene, ond sio laf wiþ þone here friþ nam. (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, A.D. 867) Middle English Whan that aprill with his shoures soote The droghte of march hath perced to the roote, And bathed every veyne in swich licour Of which vertu engendred is the flour; Whan zephirus eek with his sweete breeth Inspired hath in every holt and heeth Tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne Hath in the ram his halve cours yronne, And smale foweles maken melodye, That slepen al the nyght with open ye (so priketh hem nature in hir corages); Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages, And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes, To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes; And specially from every shires ende Of engelond to caunterbury they wende, The hooly blisful martir for to seke, That hem hath holpen whan that they were seeke. (Geoffrey Chaucer, Canterbury Tales, c. 1400) Early Modern English To be, or not to be, that is the Question: Whether ’tis Nobler in the minde to suffer The Slings and Arrowes of outragious Fortune, Or to take Armes against a Sea of troubles, And by opposing end them: to dye, to sleepe No more; and by a sleepe, to say we end The Heart-ake, and the thousand Naturall shockes That Flesh is heyre too? ‘Tis a consummation Deuoutly to be wish’d. To dye to sleepe, To sleepe, perchance to Dreame; I, there’s the rub, For in that sleepe of death, what dreames may come, When we haue shuffel’d off this mortall coile, Must giue vs pawse. There’s the respect That makes Calamity of so long life (William Shakespeare, Hamlet, c. 1600, First Folio)
Form: Mini Essay
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546611466 Timestamp) PUTTING YOUR TRUST IN ONE GOVERNMENT ORDER OR ANOTHER? You have to choose whether to trust the self interest of the judicial ‘priesthood’, the self interest of the monarchy, the self interest of the ruling oligarchy, or the self control of the democratic polity, or the self interests of public intellectuals. My argument is that you can’t trust any of them, and that the judicial priesthood benefits from ‘maintaining the rules of the game’, but if and only if the military will back them up. Why? The judiciary is a purely via-negativa discipline: it advocates nothing, and only resolves conflicts. It is already privileged. It is already high status. It is operationally selective (failure is quickly obvious and resolved), and failure of members is against the interest of the whole, who police it well through hierarchical review. The central issue in limiting the judiciary and preserving its freedom from via-positiva action, is nothing more than insufficiently enumerated terms of decidability. And that’s what i’ve done. Provided that completeness. -Curt Doolittle
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546475501 Timestamp) —“Curt, How are the courses going to work?”— Well, lets get across the principle reason we need the university format. (a) To provide you and others confidence in your investment of time and effort. (b) To provide social, physical (fitness, fighting, war) and strategy (how to conduct war), the natural law and government under the natural law – the most ‘complete’ western aristocratic education that you can recieve. (c) Our methodology requires a rather great deal of general knowledge that you have been denied in order to suppress the continuation of western civilization. (d) To provide consistent training so that you all ‘sound the same’, and therefor preserve the brand value (persuasive value) of the methodology. (e) To provide the full set of courses necessary for a judicial priesthood in the natural law, to transform our civilization just as thoroughly as did the M-P-F’s. (f) To weaken any possible criticism. In other words, this is going to be, as is in all my work, serious. The courses will work just like college/university: 1 – Lecture (video), 2 – Assignment (usually short essay questions), and; 3 – Online discussions (in other words, a lot of help is available, because that’s part of ‘our thing’ is teaching one another.) You will be able to just engage in online conversation, to join social events and activities, to take individual courses, or to take a certification in a series of courses, or to get a degree. These courses will be (I promise) as good or better than those you would receive in the top ten universities. If you want to study law, it’s yale and harvard, if you want tech and science it’s MIT and Stanford. But if you survey the courses at these universities and compare them to ours, you will find that we are teaching far more substantial content than those others do, even at that level of university. Part of the Accreditation process[1] requires those who teach warranty the students achievement. So this requires high investment of my time. So the first generation or two will get access to me. Afterward I do not know since I expect to do a lot of work generating the course material. I assume (hope) others will move in to teach the course. I know others who could do so already. The workload will be the same as university, which is two hours of work to every one hour of course time. This is extremely hard for me to judge and we will have to tailor it going forward. Mostly I see short readings with some writing. Some classes are 6 credits (two semesters of work) and some are 3 (one semester’s worth of work), and I have added some 1 credit courses as well. We are not bound by time constraints as much as universities so I will accelerate or slow the courses on demand So, this is not one of those multiple choice things (gut courses). We want our education to be meaningful androck solid and doing it online this way produces extraordinarily good data for the accreditation process. I think grades are going to be ‘incomplete’, ‘complete’, ‘distinction’, ‘honors’. I am trying to figure out how to prevent people from overreaching their abilities, so that we don’t have a high drop out rate, or make people unhappy and critical. And so we are going to have an ‘application’ process that does some limited filtering for some of the classes, while say, the combat and weapons classes we just want to know if you’re mentally stable. lol. Oh, and until we have accreditation (which takes years) we will charge the minimum possible for each course that we can. -Curt
[1] regarding accreditation: In the USA anyone can start a college or university, offer training, credits, and certification. It is up to the market to determine whether those certifications have any value. The purpose of Accreditation for the student is to understand the value of those certifications, credits, and degrees in the market. The purpose of Accreditation for the organization, is the access to student loans it provides. Access to student loans will allow us to scale quickly.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546445205 Timestamp) Fascinating how the depression affected families differently. My mother’s (French) lived in a large custom built home on a huge farm, with typical parlor, living room, dining, kitchen, porches, and four or five bedrooms. But they were devastated by the depression, and despite the number of lawyers and professors on my mother’s side I’m not sure they’ve yet recovered. On my father’s side they were business owners and during the depression bought vast tracks of land at rock bottom prices – and frankly lived off the incremental sale of that land as well as their inheritances – until my father’s generation they kept the original investments and did not draw upon them. This is how intergenerational families are created – demand for behavior driven by demand for inheritance of not only wealth but opportunity and prestige. However, through the excessive inflation that wealth (which was rather absurd at the in the early 20th century) it was obvious to my by the 80’s that it is nearly impossible to hold wealth between generations at these rates of inflation, unless it is in land (really: proximity to discounted opportunity costs) that has some chance of appreciating. That said my father’s people are businesspeople independent of land and soldiers and a few politicians, while my mother’s people are business people dependent upon land, with politicians, and lawyers, and academics. What has happened to both sides of the family is that they have been taxed and conquered through immigration, while the only people that profit from taxation and immigration are the financial sector and the state.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546611466 Timestamp) PUTTING YOUR TRUST IN ONE GOVERNMENT ORDER OR ANOTHER? You have to choose whether to trust the self interest of the judicial ‘priesthood’, the self interest of the monarchy, the self interest of the ruling oligarchy, or the self control of the democratic polity, or the self interests of public intellectuals. My argument is that you can’t trust any of them, and that the judicial priesthood benefits from ‘maintaining the rules of the game’, but if and only if the military will back them up. Why? The judiciary is a purely via-negativa discipline: it advocates nothing, and only resolves conflicts. It is already privileged. It is already high status. It is operationally selective (failure is quickly obvious and resolved), and failure of members is against the interest of the whole, who police it well through hierarchical review. The central issue in limiting the judiciary and preserving its freedom from via-positiva action, is nothing more than insufficiently enumerated terms of decidability. And that’s what i’ve done. Provided that completeness. -Curt Doolittle
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546475501 Timestamp) —“Curt, How are the courses going to work?”— Well, lets get across the principle reason we need the university format. (a) To provide you and others confidence in your investment of time and effort. (b) To provide social, physical (fitness, fighting, war) and strategy (how to conduct war), the natural law and government under the natural law – the most ‘complete’ western aristocratic education that you can recieve. (c) Our methodology requires a rather great deal of general knowledge that you have been denied in order to suppress the continuation of western civilization. (d) To provide consistent training so that you all ‘sound the same’, and therefor preserve the brand value (persuasive value) of the methodology. (e) To provide the full set of courses necessary for a judicial priesthood in the natural law, to transform our civilization just as thoroughly as did the M-P-F’s. (f) To weaken any possible criticism. In other words, this is going to be, as is in all my work, serious. The courses will work just like college/university: 1 – Lecture (video), 2 – Assignment (usually short essay questions), and; 3 – Online discussions (in other words, a lot of help is available, because that’s part of ‘our thing’ is teaching one another.) You will be able to just engage in online conversation, to join social events and activities, to take individual courses, or to take a certification in a series of courses, or to get a degree. These courses will be (I promise) as good or better than those you would receive in the top ten universities. If you want to study law, it’s yale and harvard, if you want tech and science it’s MIT and Stanford. But if you survey the courses at these universities and compare them to ours, you will find that we are teaching far more substantial content than those others do, even at that level of university. Part of the Accreditation process[1] requires those who teach warranty the students achievement. So this requires high investment of my time. So the first generation or two will get access to me. Afterward I do not know since I expect to do a lot of work generating the course material. I assume (hope) others will move in to teach the course. I know others who could do so already. The workload will be the same as university, which is two hours of work to every one hour of course time. This is extremely hard for me to judge and we will have to tailor it going forward. Mostly I see short readings with some writing. Some classes are 6 credits (two semesters of work) and some are 3 (one semester’s worth of work), and I have added some 1 credit courses as well. We are not bound by time constraints as much as universities so I will accelerate or slow the courses on demand So, this is not one of those multiple choice things (gut courses). We want our education to be meaningful androck solid and doing it online this way produces extraordinarily good data for the accreditation process. I think grades are going to be ‘incomplete’, ‘complete’, ‘distinction’, ‘honors’. I am trying to figure out how to prevent people from overreaching their abilities, so that we don’t have a high drop out rate, or make people unhappy and critical. And so we are going to have an ‘application’ process that does some limited filtering for some of the classes, while say, the combat and weapons classes we just want to know if you’re mentally stable. lol. Oh, and until we have accreditation (which takes years) we will charge the minimum possible for each course that we can. -Curt
[1] regarding accreditation: In the USA anyone can start a college or university, offer training, credits, and certification. It is up to the market to determine whether those certifications have any value. The purpose of Accreditation for the student is to understand the value of those certifications, credits, and degrees in the market. The purpose of Accreditation for the organization, is the access to student loans it provides. Access to student loans will allow us to scale quickly.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546719526 Timestamp) IS IT THAT SIMPLE? Seems to be a common observation that men informationally limited and insensitive and women are informationally oversaturated and hypersensitive, while we both have about the same limits on calculating decidability. You hear this a lot: –“Men are stupid and women are crazy”– But honestly it’s just cognitive structure. The drawers of the male mind and relative insensitivity, and the nets of the female mind and relative hypersensitivity. Evolution must have had a lot of fun rolling up those characters sheets…. Seriously. I wonder how many times Zeus rolled the dice before he said “Wow, do ya’ know how much fun we’re gonna have watching THIS pairing of the sexes? We are gonna be entertained for the next million years!!!” The gods have a mischievous sense of humor.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1546896172 Timestamp) Something must be both false, and immoral. Christian mythology may be ‘true’ to some portion of the faithful (at least ideally) but faith has no place in government, law, or war. However, there is nothing counter to the natural law in christian practice. So christianity passes the test of being not parasitic or counter to natural law. In fact, it is the OPTIMUM EXPRESSION of natural law. This NOT true of judaism and islam which are bothd estructive religions designed to destroy indo european aristocratic civilization. Moreover, while I see demand for a church at least in the protestant sense of participatory government of the commons, and while I consider myself a christian in the secular, and philosophical sense where christianity functions as a political religion, I also consider myself a heathen (pagan) and an advocate for ‘Natural Religion’ (Folk Religion of Nature, ancestors, family, and hearth) was well, and I consider myself an Aryan(or aristotelian) in the sense of the physical laws of nature, and the natural law of men. For these reasons my view of our future religion is along all THREE of these lines, incorporating the best aspects of all three traditions: heathen, aristotelian, and christian, and divesting those three systems of that which is false or harmful to our people.) I wrote the Oath of Transcendent man because I believe it is the optimum correspondence with the physical laws of the universe, and the natural laws of cooperation. Cheers https://propertarianinstitute.com/the-oath-of-transcendent-man/
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547142603 Timestamp) —“What is it that we mean by “metaphysics”? Is it the reverse-engineering of human cognition? Is it really so useless to try to reverse-engineer the mind? I could accept something of the sort of: “doing metaphysics even of the sort of naturalistic inquiry that you profess requires the sort of social institutions or commons that would be too vulnerable to parasitism”.”— Adam Voight Short Answer: Metaphysics is looking for means of cheating. What I think we call metaphysics is the discipline of trying to create a fictional narrative that justifies our means of survival, competition, prospering, and signaling given our abilities, means, and conditions. So an ‘ontology” (paradigm) that ‘lets me get what I want’. Where my approach is ‘here is the paradigm’ now negotiate within it for what you want, don’t make an excuse that what you want is ‘good’ so that you can engage in all sorts of discounting (cheating). The rest of the ontologies (paradigms) are just networks on top of that base ontology (paradigm) of human action (perception, cognition, memory, calculation, speech, negotiation, action). Well, I mean I worked on AI, and now we have cognitive science, and we have language that expresses the content of the mind, so it’s pretty easy. I mean, I think I have a pretty good understanding of how the mind works, and I’ve come to understand it’s actually not complicated, it’s just an emergent phenomenon of enough hierarchical memory, and the devotion of so much of that memory to the continuous production of serialized speech so that we can negotiate cooperation with others, because cooperation produces such ridiculously outsized returns on calories that language and cooperation are more valuable than any other caloric expenditure. In my book I teach that the human body, intuition, and mind provide a the system of measurement we work with because it is all that we can work with because it is the only comparisons we are able to make – and that all language consists of measurements culminating in transactions. The question is only the precision of those measurements on the one hand, the correspondence of those measurements, and the ignorance, error, bias, and deceit in those measurements. I then use that system of measurement (operational language) to provide commensurability, and reframe all human experience, knowledge, and disciplines in that commensurable language. Then I document every known method of deflating language to produce increased precision and decreased opportunity for conflation. Then I document every known method of inflating language to engaging the masking of ignorance, and the generation of error, bias, and deceit. Then I account for costs. In other words the Metaphysics of Action turns out to be the only non-false model. The metaphysics of speech limited to action turns out to be the only non-false model. And the tests of costs whether at the physical or human level turns out to be the only non-false model. This turns out to be what we do in court already when prosecuting a crime. Which is why the west developed reason, empiricism, science: it all evolved out of our natural common law of sovereignty. The moment you base your cognitive hierarchy on sovereignty (the individual) then there is no conflation available by which to ignore costs. This sentence is very profound. if you base it on anything else you invite (make excuses for) the unaccountable, adn the undecidable, leaving room for authoritarian or communal calculation. This hierarchy of concepts is quite important really. It explains why so many thinkers went off the rails and why there is a proliferation of incommensurable ‘fictions’ in philosophy and theology and opinion. “How can I cheat others?” “How can I use cheating to rally large numbers of others?” “How can I use cheating and rallying large numbers to obtain power?” I see history as a few people trying to create truth and productivity, a lot of people lying and cheating, and a lot more trying to get by with the lies, cheating, and stealing that they can get away with in the current context. Because I study science and the law and economics and not philosophy ,theology, literature, or what passes for history but is largely propaganda.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547142386 Timestamp) ARISTOTLE AS OUR LAWGIVER, vs THE PROPHETS AND THEIR LIES. The first reason to reform Aristotle by translation of his works into operational language is to lionize him and make him the founder of western thought – the via negativa, to the Nihilism of Socrates and the Idealism of Plato, and the lies of the Abrahamists whether Abraham, Saul, or Mohammed. This form of heroic Idolization anthropomorphizes the character (and his military peer alexander) such that we can engage in hero-competition with competing civilizations and their advocates, and our own sophists within, (b) and anchor western civilization as a continuous tradition from our origins in European customary law of sovereignty and tort, to the present anglo common law of tort. The second reason is to falsify all the pseudo-philosophy and theology that exists between aristotle and the present. Now re-writing Aristotle in operational prose would be the equivalent of the work undertaken to produce the king james bible, and the basis of a western education – particularly the Ethics. When combined with the foundational myth of the Trial of Achilles (taught to children by dividing up the work and memorizing it by chanting – given that vast parts are repeated over and over again – and presented by classes as a holiday play). We would have the Hellenic tradition restored. Doing the same for each series of festivals for the old germanic and celtic in fall and winter, and preserving Easter for the christian and mayday would be relatively simple. We can re-ritualize our civilization as historical play. Because, as Nietzsche taught us, it is the participation of the chorus, whether in games, play, ritual, church, or prayer that provides the mindfulness of associating the sacred and collective with the mythos that binds them. If we have an education system (church limited by the natural law) that teaches mindfulness, history, the tools of calculation (reading, writing, numbers, economics, physics), reduce education to part time as soon as children are able to engage in part time work, and put as great an emphasis on apprenticeship as we do higher education, and limit ‘higher education’ to that which requires advanced calculation (stem+l) we can restore the civic society and eliminate the alienation and signal warfare endemic to consumer modernity. If this church, which provides education, also serves the function of consumer banking, savings, and investment, with near-zero interest on durable goods, then we will have restored the ancient order and destroyed the entire network of parasites and rent seekers in academy, finance, and state. We do not need to establish this church. We merely need to provide the economic incentives to do so, and the regulatory law that binds them to the construction of that common good. The most notable exception would be the use of successful retired people in the administration and teaching of these things rather than those who have been insulated from market forces, market competition, and demonstrated market achievement.