Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548545712 Timestamp) I prefer ORDER. (intolerance). I would rather live in a prussian order with limited means of signaling (greater equality of responsibility for the commons.) I have come to understand that monarchies are better at the production of aesthetic commons, the generals better judges of war; the middle class at commercial commons; and the lower class at insurance commons. I would prefer we only let people engage in the production of commons they are good at. And that they have ‘skin in the game’ for any commons that they produce.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548545500 Timestamp) THE SELF-REGULATION OF THE ARTS –Art is a way of making an idea real (open to experience). Art is the demonstrated property of an artist. Art is governed by established rules and principles and demonstrates an observance of limits on what is permitted or appropriate.”—Spencer Young This is .. really good structure. Rarely good structure. Pls let me suggest a tweak to your thought process a bit, and to riff off this opportunity to educate others: –“…governed by…”— This phrase is an analogy, not a description. Is art ‘governed?’. No. The process of regulation is much more elegant than that.

    • There exist economic costs of the production of different art forms.
    • There exist civilizations capable of paying the costs of different art forms (or not).
    • There exist technologies within each craft as well as the craft of aesthetics.
    • There exists symbolic content and aesthetic composition that ‘brands’ periods (states of development).
    • There exists mastery of the craft, the aesthetics, and the informational(symbolic) content.
    • There exists a tradition in all of the above (market).
    • There exists imitation that causes that tradition(market).
    • There are canons (reference works) that reinforce imitation and tradition (standards of weights and measures);
    • There is a market for imitation, canons, and the art itself.

    This is one of those deceptively hard questions of art theory. As far as I know, art is an ancient, even eternal, self-regulating market that ‘demonstrates demand for art works within both current and traditional limits of craftsmanship, aesthetics, meaning, context of display, and morals/ethics/manners (appropriateness).” There is plenty of ‘market manipulation’ in the arts, and it has been so forever. Just like every other market. However, professionals are rarely fooled. And tradition of the heroic value of arts continues unabated. (thanks for letting me riff with this)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548545500 Timestamp) THE SELF-REGULATION OF THE ARTS –Art is a way of making an idea real (open to experience). Art is the demonstrated property of an artist. Art is governed by established rules and principles and demonstrates an observance of limits on what is permitted or appropriate.”—Spencer Young This is .. really good structure. Rarely good structure. Pls let me suggest a tweak to your thought process a bit, and to riff off this opportunity to educate others: –“…governed by…”— This phrase is an analogy, not a description. Is art ‘governed?’. No. The process of regulation is much more elegant than that.

    • There exist economic costs of the production of different art forms.
    • There exist civilizations capable of paying the costs of different art forms (or not).
    • There exist technologies within each craft as well as the craft of aesthetics.
    • There exists symbolic content and aesthetic composition that ‘brands’ periods (states of development).
    • There exists mastery of the craft, the aesthetics, and the informational(symbolic) content.
    • There exists a tradition in all of the above (market).
    • There exists imitation that causes that tradition(market).
    • There are canons (reference works) that reinforce imitation and tradition (standards of weights and measures);
    • There is a market for imitation, canons, and the art itself.

    This is one of those deceptively hard questions of art theory. As far as I know, art is an ancient, even eternal, self-regulating market that ‘demonstrates demand for art works within both current and traditional limits of craftsmanship, aesthetics, meaning, context of display, and morals/ethics/manners (appropriateness).” There is plenty of ‘market manipulation’ in the arts, and it has been so forever. Just like every other market. However, professionals are rarely fooled. And tradition of the heroic value of arts continues unabated. (thanks for letting me riff with this)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548678844 Timestamp) THAT THING WE CALL ‘LOGIC” We can observe our use of logic, math, geometry, just fine, the way we can observe every other one of our senses. But, until the present era would could not inspect the mechanism by which logic, math, geometry function: the detection of differences in constant relations between recursive neural networks. In other words, we lacked instrumentation for observation and measurement at such scales, and a paradigm (logic) for modeling them instrumental (computer science). it also is the most complex phenomenon we have examined which, because it’s heuristic (adaptive). But the fundamentally ability of us to sense differences, particularly in something so informationally dense (concentrated) as speech, is produced by differences in degree and distribution of excitement of neural networks. In other words we sense both constant and inconstant relations, in what babbage correctly called ‘a difference engine’. The logical facility consists in our ability to detect differences in constant relations between a nearly infinite hierarchy of forever-contingent associations. The discipline we call logic attempts to tests whether we ‘speak’ in constant relations. The discipline of formal logic attempts to produce a grammar of categories of constant relations in an effort to test for inconstant relations, claimed to be constant. —“Long before the twentieth century the prevailing opinion was that Euclidean geometry, standard mathematics, and logic did not rest on experience in any obvious way. They were largely presupposed in our empirical work, and it was difficult to see what if anything might disconfirm them. Geometry was a special case and might be handled in different ways that we shall not discuss here. That leaves logic and mathematics.”—S.E.P.

    • Curt

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548679656 Timestamp) THE “ENTIRELY REASONABLE” UTILITY OF MATHEMATICS —“…Russell and Frege …”– Sorry but mathematics is so useful because it consists of precisely one constant relation: position, for which we have invented a naming scheme of positional names. Therefore every reference in any set of constant relations of any scale, at any scale, can be named (in as many as n-dimensions), and with that name all other relations ascertainable. Mathematics consists of the assignment of, and operations upon, positional names names, and the various techniques for constructing or deducing constant relations with others names. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is nothing more than its dependence upon a single immutable constant relation: positional name. This simplicity makes the error to which all other names (other logics) are subject effectively impossible, and limits error to errors of operation and deduction.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548678844 Timestamp) THAT THING WE CALL ‘LOGIC” We can observe our use of logic, math, geometry, just fine, the way we can observe every other one of our senses. But, until the present era would could not inspect the mechanism by which logic, math, geometry function: the detection of differences in constant relations between recursive neural networks. In other words, we lacked instrumentation for observation and measurement at such scales, and a paradigm (logic) for modeling them instrumental (computer science). it also is the most complex phenomenon we have examined which, because it’s heuristic (adaptive). But the fundamentally ability of us to sense differences, particularly in something so informationally dense (concentrated) as speech, is produced by differences in degree and distribution of excitement of neural networks. In other words we sense both constant and inconstant relations, in what babbage correctly called ‘a difference engine’. The logical facility consists in our ability to detect differences in constant relations between a nearly infinite hierarchy of forever-contingent associations. The discipline we call logic attempts to tests whether we ‘speak’ in constant relations. The discipline of formal logic attempts to produce a grammar of categories of constant relations in an effort to test for inconstant relations, claimed to be constant. —“Long before the twentieth century the prevailing opinion was that Euclidean geometry, standard mathematics, and logic did not rest on experience in any obvious way. They were largely presupposed in our empirical work, and it was difficult to see what if anything might disconfirm them. Geometry was a special case and might be handled in different ways that we shall not discuss here. That leaves logic and mathematics.”—S.E.P.

    • Curt

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548679656 Timestamp) THE “ENTIRELY REASONABLE” UTILITY OF MATHEMATICS —“…Russell and Frege …”– Sorry but mathematics is so useful because it consists of precisely one constant relation: position, for which we have invented a naming scheme of positional names. Therefore every reference in any set of constant relations of any scale, at any scale, can be named (in as many as n-dimensions), and with that name all other relations ascertainable. Mathematics consists of the assignment of, and operations upon, positional names names, and the various techniques for constructing or deducing constant relations with others names. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is nothing more than its dependence upon a single immutable constant relation: positional name. This simplicity makes the error to which all other names (other logics) are subject effectively impossible, and limits error to errors of operation and deduction.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548818179 Timestamp) —“CURT: QUESTION: THE ECONOMICS OF THE PERCEPTION OF ART?”— Could you recommend any works on Art Theory? I have been looking a bit into Rand’s Romantic Manifesto. (CD: honestly – and this will surprise people – as far as I know (and I know) there aren’t any better. My work is an extension of the RM. And honestly it’s the best most important piece she wrote and in my opinion the only piece with long term value. It influenced me greatly. If you add Gary Becker’s economic analysis of art I think you get the rest of it.) It seems the absence of art (silence, non-action) achieves non-imposition of costs whereas the act of art always imposes costs. (CD: I would say is broken into two statements. 1- Markets require attention seeking – that is how we reduce opportunity costs: density of opportunity and density of attention opportunities. 2- Some commons offer aesthetic attention seeking as an alternative to ‘unordered’, wild or unmaintained, commons. A well manicured park with statues of men of arts and letters is a pretty good place to be. 3- Not all commons are available for attention seeking, or attention-drawing, – and in fact that is what ‘sacred’ means. 4- Not all people possess the ability and training to respect sacred spaces, and they must be protected from such people.) Are all actions of an individual considered art? – No. (CD: I would say that art consists of that which the actor intends to invest in obtaining attention by the expenditure of resources for the provision of aesthetic returns. in other words, we choose to invest in the aesthetics of any given craft (making) for the purpose of attention to the decoration of mind, time and space in all that term’s possible meanings.) Who defines what is art and what is not? – Consumers, viewers, participants. (CD: Um, I would say no, that art is what it is across the spectrum of childish to amateurish, to professional, to iconic, to revolutionary. I would say that craft, design, editorial, and art are very different things. i would say some people engage in fraud that takes advantage of consumer ignorance, and that the value of art is determined by long term market forces (what survives the competition between fashion and ignorance). (CD: many goods are brought to market, those that survive in the market survive, those that don’t do not. What is an attempt at art is defined above. what succeeds at art is determined by a series of markets, the most common of which is REFERENCE BY OTHER ARTIST: by imitation. Art is worthy of perception. – Perception costs are time and energy. (CD: the market determines whether it is worthy of perception, most art is not worthy of perception just like most products are not worthy of consumption. The difference is that it is easier to find a sucker for bad art than it is to find a sucker for a bad car, and far harder to find a sucker for a poorly tailored bit of clothing.) Are all actions of an individual considered art? – No. Who defines what is art and what is not? Consumers, viewers, participants. Art is worthy of perception. Perception costs are time and labor. (CD: We would use a slighting different set of terms I suggest you adopt: Art competes for attention. Attention is a resource, consisting of time and energy. The returns on attention are either there, or they are not. Given that the returns vary from the free association the art causes for the individual, for people who see his possession of it, for public use, and for public ceremonial use, the chances of providing that return are highly dependent upon the craft, design, content, scale, of the piece. What you put in your bathroom, your guest bath, your living room, your office, a court building, and a church hold different standards.) Viewers perceive, recognize and set value on something. Perception and recognition cost time and labor. Similar to how consumers set prices. An act of art doesn’t exist because its up to it is a viewer value judgement. (CD: Hmmmm. Art is a product like any other. Books are a product like any other. tools are products like any other. You must undrestand the language and context of the book to buy and use it for returns. You must understand the possible operations and context of use of a tool to buy and use it for returns. ) (CD: the problem in your reasoning is as usual one of grammar. People create products. Those products serve a function or not (satisfy a market demand). Those products serve sufficient market demands to sell or not (provide marginal value necessary for incentive to exchange). Those exchanges(investments) survive the market for aesthetic competition over time, for the intended market whether individual, group, polity, world). Here is what you might be searching for: Public art of any kind is dependent on shares strategy, values, knowledge, and experience. Lacking those shared properties it is no longer possible to produce art that does not impose a cost instead of provide a return. Everything is open to economic analysis under propertarianism.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548779115 Timestamp) UNDERSTAND: RELIGION IS THE HARDEST PROBLEM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE Because it is education and training of the intuition by suggestion using narrative, ritual, oath, and debt. And because the intuition is the lowest common denominator of decidability in a population, demanding the least reason, calculation, and calculation. We are not ignorant as we have been throughout history. What we call ‘spirituality’ is the evolutionary artifact of the reduction of cognitive, social, physical, and therefore emotional burden by submission to and membership in the pack(male bias) or herd (female bias), and the resulting feeling of peace, safety, and mindfulness that results from that submission (surrender of individuality) to the pack or herd. The more agency, opportunity, experience, peace, safety, and mindfulness one has the lower the demand for the feeling of ‘spirituality’. The less agency, opportunity, experience, pace, safety and mindfulness on has, the greater the demand for the mindfulness that results from submission(surrender of individuality) to the pack or herd. We cannot demand those lacking interpersonal, social, economic, political, and military market value survive without the training in mindfulness that makes possible individual, interpersonal, social, economic, political, and military cooperation with others and the benefits that come from it. That would be IRRECIPROCAL. However, we can at the same time limit the external agency of those who lack the agency and market value to use the political process to influence others where such an influence is against the natural law. By the demand for truthful speech in the commons in matters commercial, … we eliminate the incentive to use the untestifiable for profit. By eliminating the need for churches to obtain donations, we likewise eliminate the incentive to use the untestifiable for profit. By demanding the churches warranty their due diligence in the production of education in the personal, interpersonal, social, commercial, financial, economic, political, and military. This will have the effect of driving groups that are hostile to the natural law and to european civilization out of every aspect of life, and make ‘religions’ liable for the actions of their ‘products’: citizens.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548777714 Timestamp) THE PRESERVATION OF CHRISTIANITY AS A POLITICAL RELIGION, AND THE RESTORATION OF PAGAN AND HEATHEN CULTURAL RELIGION UNDER THE NATURAL LAW. (I don’t want to interfere in Maximus’ thread, because he certainly doesn’t need my help in arguing propertarian natural law, but I like the suggestion that I should do a video. I have already done the subject with our favorite Aussie, and I will do the video now that you bring it up. Let’s understand these facts. 1 – Christianity teaches natural law – just poorly. 2 – Christianity teaches (exhaustive tit-for-tat) optimum IN-GROUP strategy as an extension of natural law – but does do poorly, and because it does so poorly – does not limit to kin, (is universalist (outgroup)) and therefore a mixture of good and bad. 3 – Christianity made us, particularly our women, vulnerable to marxism, postmodernism, and feminism, because these three ‘replacement religions’ are communicated by the same false promise and sophomoric argument, but 4 – The evidence is that christianity produces prosperity wherever it goes, but is a higher demand than Islam, like judaism is a higher demand than christianity. But the fact remains that western people still retain both Legal (roman) intellectual (greek), familial (heathen european), and political(semitic) ‘cults’. And these cults are all reflections of our classes. And all of the classes make use of what set of cults is necessary for cooperation at their level of agency.(ability to act). 5 – The purpose of christianity, marxism, postmodernism, and feminism, was to destroy the empirical, rational, military, legal, and commercial order and replace it with Egyptian, south semitic, north semitic, and Persian means of ruling an underclass through false promises (life after death), false debt(‘for our sins”, “original sins”) using supernatural frauds in the ancient world, and using economic (marxist), social (postmodern), and political (feminism and multiculturalism) in the modern world. My understanding is that especially among those who will fight, christianity must be accommodated, and the law says that it can be accommodated because among religions it teaches natural law. Evidence is that churches are emptying. Particularly in mixed areas. and you haven’t seen the law on religion I’m proposing yet, so you don’t know that I’m suggesting restoring the economy to the church and restoring competition with the state – under certain conditions. And i’m also suggesting how any of our ‘natural religions’ can obtain this same cultural, economic, political centrality once again, by providing particularly powerful incentives, including restoring education and educational funding to ‘churches’ in the broadest sense (and ending centralized education). (in other words, prohibiting falsehood is different from demanding certain skills). Under these incentives I believe our religions will slowly (possibly rapidly) migrate away from falsehood to truthfulness due to incentives of (a) simple economics (b) increasing vastly their influence, (c) defending themselves from the state. In other words, ‘let nature take its course’, and keep the state out of christian faith, and keep christian faith out of TRUTH CLAIMS. This sets up a market for the three categories of religion, while providing mindfulness. A christian can say “i hold [xxxx] as a matter of faith, I do not claim it is true, because what is true must be open to testimony, and Faith itself is not open to testimony. As long as I do not try to use truth claims (arguments) in matters commercial, financial, economic, and political, then I have not broken the law.” One cannot claim something false is true for the purpose of induction (consequential argument). And in particular (islam/judaism/catholicism) because one may not claim there is any law other than the natural law (no competitor). And one may not advocate a religion that is duplicitous because of that (Judaism and Islam are duplicitous and poly-ethical.). With the prohibition on judaism and islam, the preservation of christianity due to its natural law, the universal education in stoicism (mindfulness), and the combination of christian and european (heathen) festivals, my understanding is that we will see our religion return to its natural condition where the poor are christian, the middle ancestral (heathen), an the upper-classes, as always, purely empirical and giving respect to the middle and lower through participation in oath, ritual and festival. So it is not so much that we need to end Christianity, as it is we need to create a range of churches (wholistic mindfulness, socialization, and education) that will serve the interest of the different classes In content, while the same underlying constraint on adherence to natural law. In other words, we must make a practical accommodation for faith in those who need faith because they have no alternative to faith for the purpose of obtaining that mindfulness necessary in a complex society in which many of us lack the familial, social, economic, political relations, as well as perhaps the genetics to provide value in social, economic, and political markets. So there is ‘something for everyone at a cost to everyone’ in my proposal. But it is hard to argue against the cllection of goods. we know this because while people will claim they are christian, go to church, celebrate festivals, take oaths, abide by rules, they will very rarely, under oath, claim such things are true. All humans follow interests. They follow interests becasue it is in their interests. And they use propaganda an arugment and belief to justify the pursuit of those interests. This is a small part of a very complex subject, and was the most complex subject I had to tackle with. Religion is the hard problem of social science, because it is, in the end, education in the ability of people to work in harmony with their intuitions as animals and in harmony with each other in groups, and therefore reach personal, familial, social, economic, political, and military benefits from one another.)