Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • (bookmark me) The evolution of the Golden Rule represents a progression of moral

    (bookmark me)

    The evolution of the Golden Rule represents a progression of moral principles from simple reciprocity to more sophisticated concepts of justice and societal order.

    1. Golden Rule (Positiva Equalitarian – Slaves, Lower Class):

    Phrase: “Do unto others what you wish done unto you.”

    Origin: This is often attributed to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament (Matthew 7:12) and is a central tenet in many religious and ethical systems.

    Analysis: This rule promotes positive reciprocity, encouraging proactive kindness and empathy. It reflects a moral expectation that individuals should act with consideration of how they themselves would wish to be treated. While this principle is universally accessible, it can be argued that it appeals more to those who are more vulnerable or powerless (e.g., slaves or the lower class), where mutual care is a survival strategy.

    2. Silver Rule (Negativa Equalitarian – Middle Class):

    Phrase: “Do not unto others that which you would wish not done to you.”

    Origin: This concept is often attributed to Confucius and is echoed in various forms across different cultures, including European traditions.

    Analysis: The Silver Rule operates on the principle of negative reciprocity, which is a more restrained approach than the Golden Rule. By focusing on avoiding harm rather than promoting good, it emphasizes justice and fairness rather than charity or generosity. This principle aligns more closely with the values of the middle class, where stability and avoidance of conflict are prioritized.

    3. Aethebert’s Rule (Negativa Egalitarian – Upper Class):

    Phrase: “Do not unto others what they do not wish done unto them.”

    Origin: This is a reference to Anglo-Saxon legal principles, stemming from the laws of Æthelberht, one of the earliest Anglo-Saxon kings to codify laws in written form.

    Analysis: This rule refines the Silver Rule by incorporating an understanding of others’ specific desires and autonomy. It requires a deeper level of empathy and consideration, reflecting the complexity of social interactions in the upper middle class. Here, the principle moves from generalized fairness to individualized respect, acknowledging the diversity of human preferences and the importance of respecting personal boundaries.

    4. Paine’s Revision:

    Phrase: “The duty of man . . . is plain and simple, and consists of but two points: his duty to God, which every man must feel, and with respect to his neighbor, to do as he would be done by.”

    Origin: Thomas Paine, a political philosopher and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States.

    Analysis: Paine’s revision integrates the Golden Rule with a sense of divine duty, linking personal morality with a broader cosmic order. This version is less about social class and more about universal moral obligations, emphasizing simplicity and the importance of both vertical (to God) and horizontal (to fellow humans) relationships. Paine attempts to elevate the principle to a universal duty rather than a class-specific guideline.

    5. Comparison:

    Negative vs. Positive Reciprocity:The negative forms (Silver Rule and Aethebert’s Rule) are concerned primarily with justice, ensuring that individuals do not harm others and respecting the autonomy and desires of others. This is more aligned with legalistic or contractual relationships.
    The positive form (Golden Rule) pushes further into the realm of generosity, urging individuals not just to avoid harm but to actively do good. This form addresses sins of omission as well as commission, broadening the ethical responsibility of individuals.

    Contextual Relevance:The Golden Rule is more suited to environments where proactive kindness is necessary for community survival (e.g., lower classes). In contrast, the Silver Rule and Aethebert’s Rule resonate more with those who have more resources and autonomy (middle and upper-middle classes), where the focus shifts from survival to maintaining social order and personal boundaries.

    Summary:

    The progression from the Golden Rule to Aethebert’s Rule and Paine’s revision reflects an evolution in ethical thinking from simple reciprocity to a more nuanced understanding of justice, respect, and duty. The positive form of reciprocity (Golden Rule) encourages active benevolence, whereas the negative forms (Silver Rule and Aethebert’s Rule) emphasize non-maleficence and respect for others’ autonomy, becoming increasingly sophisticated as they address the complexities of human interactions across different social strata.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-31 12:19:23 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1829856508772769793

  • National Socialism was perhaps the most important innovation in political social

    National Socialism was perhaps the most important innovation in political social and economic organization since the development of the modern state by england, the rule of law by the greeks, and the invention of organized religion by the egyptians. Especially since it was a counter-reaction to political judaism and their production of the crimes of the marxist sequence. (Including you who are a member of that criminal cult.)
    The fact that the national socialists went to war was merely a necessary reversal of the napoleonic destruction of the greater german civilization from the west, and the jewish communist cancer from russia in the east, with the tolerance of the english and the french liberalism giving access to the seditions of the Marxists.
    The prosecution of Germany and the nazis is already being reversed and it will continue to be as the conflict between civilizations and the races that compose them reaches its peak sometime this century – and the world returns to historical norm, as the anglo-american experiment in universalizing classical liberalism continues to collapse without the anglo-american attempt to save humanity by spreading it.
    I’m not advocating anything I’m merely stating the determinism that must arise from the genetic and cultural differences of macro groups we call civilizations and races.

    Reply addressees: @ArcticFireFox9 @KarlRadl

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-31 12:05:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1829853041614327812

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1829583864643108983

  • Apparently someone I care about thinks I’m a racist. Look, I have a job. That jo

    Apparently someone I care about thinks I’m a racist.
    Look, I have a job. That job is the truth. I don’t get an opinion about the truth. That’s a luxury you have. It’s not
    one I have. I write law. Constitutional law.
    Do you want a judge to have an opinion, or to adjudicate the law by the truth? I work from the truth whether I like it or not. And there are many truths I have discovered that I do not care for. But that’s my job. And someone has to do it.
    As a person, I care that you’re moral, kind, and of good manners. As an entrepreneur, you’re all green – I can either make money with you or not. As a philosopher of jurisprudence I depend on the science.
    Why? Because my goal is to prevent lies in public, to the public, in matters public, particularly from the government, academy, and media. Why that goal? Because we cannot use the government as a market for cooperation between sexes, classes, and ethnicities unless we work from the truth.
    Why? Because the truth is that sexes, classes, and ethnicities do not need ‘one size fits all’, which is eitehr exclusionary or a race to the bottom. We need what suits our developmental differences until we are capable of equal participation according to our abilities.
    If you think there is a more moral objective then you’re wrong.
    So I will state the painful truth about the differences between sexes classes and ethnicities, and most importantly cultures – because cultures are the source of our problems – not so much our genes.
    Would I prefer to live in a homogenous culture in england or scandinavia or northeastern america? Of course. Would most of us prefer to have the opportunity for a mixed culture urban environment either when young or when seeking novelty? Of course. Would I prefer to live with other technology ceos or other public intellectuals, and not people of classes with whom I do not share anything at all other than moral conviction? Of course.
    But that doesn’t affect my judgement as an author of law. And it doesn’t affect my behavior in treating all people with respect and kindness and care whenever possible. Nor does it prevent me from, when necessary, stating the painful truth to prevent us from conflict, or to prohibit public servants from lying to us with reckless abandon under the presumption than they know better than the people. (they don’t)
    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-20 04:48:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825756658846330880

  • Apparently someone I care about thinks I’m a racist. Look, I have a job. That jo

    Apparently someone I care about thinks I’m a racist.
    Look, I have a job. That job is the truth. I don’t get an opinion about the truth. That’s a luxury you have. It’s not
    One I have. I write law. Constitutional law.
    Do you want a judge to have an opinion, or to adjudicate the law by the truth? I work from the truth whether I like it or not. And there are many truths I have discovered that I do not care for. But that’s my job. And someone has to do it.
    As a person, I care that you’re moral, kind, and of good manners. As an entrepreneur, you’re all green – I can either make money with you or not. As a philosopher of jurisprudence I depend on the science.
    Why? Because my goal is to prevent lies in public, to the public, in matters public, particularly from the government, academy, and media. Why that goal? Because we cannot use the government as a market for cooperation between sexes, classes, and ethnicities unless we work from the truth.
    Why? Because the truth is that sexes, classes, and ethnicities do not need ‘one size fits all’, which is eitehr exclusionary or a race to the bottom. We need what suits our developmental differences until we are capable of equal participation according to our abilities.
    If you think there is a more moral objective then you’re wrong.
    So I will state the painful truth about the differences between sexes classes and ethnicities, and most importantly cultures – because cultures are the source of our problems – not so much our genes.
    Would I prefer to live in a homogenous culture in england or scandinavia or northeastern america? Of course. Would most of us prefer to have the opportunity for a mixed culture urban environment either when young or when seeking novelty? Of course. Would I prefer to live with other technology ceos or other public intellectuals, and not people of classes with whom I do not share anything at all other than moral conviction? Of course.
    But that doesn’t affect my judgement as an author of law. And it doesn’t affect my behavior in treating all people with respect and kindness and care whenever possible. Nor does it prevent me from, when necessary, stating the painful truth to prevent us from conflict, or to prohibit public servants from lying to us with reckless abandon under the presumption than they know better than the people. (they don’t)
    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-20 04:48:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825750158941790209

  • REQUIREMENTS FOR RELIGIOSITY Religion philosophy or knowledge are necessary for

    REQUIREMENTS FOR RELIGIOSITY
    Religion philosophy or knowledge are necessary for the production of mindfulness as the means of suppression of neuroticism, in proportion to one’s self image, status, and success in life. Religions evolved during the age of transformation because of the restoration of trade after the bronze age collapse and the greek introduction of the technology of money debt and credit.
    Science: there are only a few requirements for religiosity and they are not a compliment:
    (a) empathic instead of systemic sex differences in cognition – with empathic bias amplifying neuroticism.
    (b) neuroticism – especially in women.
    (c) feminine bias in cognition for the same reason.
    (d) Intelligence – allowing the application of systematizing -with intelligence mediating the need for fictitious evasions of reality, and greater ability to cooperate with others.
    (e) Indoctrination – with lower intelligence, more superstitions, less educated, less advanced polities more dependent upon sedation by religious superstition.
    (f) in a european population that means about 20% of people will need some sort of social and psychological sedation if we do not provide an institutional means of training people into mindfulness. In an east asian population it’s as little as 10 percent. In a south eurasian population from north of africa to east of india with average IQs down in the low 80s, it’s necessary for two thirds. In africa we don’t know yet but statistically it appears closer to ninety percent.
    (g) Neotenic evolution suppressed impulsivity and aggression in exchange for agency and moderation. That’s the primary difference between the races and the civilizations that evolved to support cooperation between them.
    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @Archaic3one @theyakadude

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-17 23:38:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824953892016205824

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824948307304812634

  • The difference between truth on one hand and the utility of myths, legends, para

    The difference between truth on one hand and the utility of myths, legends, parables, given the difference in human variation and ability.
    But you are probably, like most, unaware that especially in china the concept of religion as we mean it in the abrahamic and indic traditions is considered rather silly and childish.
    The japanese still practice somewhat the only ‘natural and non false religion’ of shinto which is ancestor and nature worship. Because worship is thanks for the debt to those who came before us and the nature upon which we depend.
    All religion is debt service. Because it provokes the mindfulness of submissions to the pack(herd). Which is a very primitive and necessary instinct for social animals.
    Likewise the purpose of that debt is to overcome human neuroticism (negative thoughts), anxiety, and fear that results from the gradual alienation of post-tribal life and continuous social regulation and reinforcement.
    The question is whether we need more false religions or whether we can restore non-false religions. The greeks (west) and the chinese (east) thought philosophy, mythology, and ritual were superior to ‘falsehoods’ so common in the abrahamic tradition of slave morality (equality as rebellion against aristocracy) and less common but present in the indic religion of serf morality (social hierarchy as a substitute for military rank).
    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @Archaic3one @theyakadude

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-17 23:26:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824950878153129984

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824948307304812634

  • THE REVOLUTION PROVIDED BY NLI What we are doing is revolutionary… we want peopl

    THE REVOLUTION PROVIDED BY NLI
    What we are doing is revolutionary… we want people to speak the truth – at least in public to the public in matters public: truth before face regardless of cost.

    Because People are currently revolting in both senses of the term. Because they are saturated in lies – that are revolting to them, and their behavior is a revolting to one another as a consequence.

    We’re providing a method of cooperation by which they can peaceably resolve their differences with one another. And if we cannot resolve those differences by truths, then we may separate.

    Because: “If you think you’re oppressed, then we should separate, go our separate ways, then both of us can discover by your actions whether you were in fact oppressed, or if you were wrong, incompetent, lazy, parasitic, criminal, seditious, or treasonous.”

    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-17 17:17:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824858208524988417

  • Counter Position: Israel is facing a demographic challenge of a developed-nation

    Counter Position:
    Israel is facing a demographic challenge of a developed-nation’s rate of reproduction amidst undeveloped nations still reproducing as undeveloped nations do, combined with a long term proxy war largely organized by iran to end it as not only a state but a jewish state, and if possible ending jews in the middle east as a way for exiting all western influence from the region so that Iran may restore an empire, monopolize the region’s oil production, creating an oil bourse, and world use of the Rial as a currency, which will then fund Iranian military expansion.
    For israel, and perhaps for the entire region, there is no choice but destroying the proxies AND ending the Iranian capacity to supply them.
    To say otherwise is more of the same advocacy postwar and post-cold war ideological failure.
    The world is returning to the conflict of civilizations.
    They must because civilizations produce institutions necessary for their demographic distributions.
    Change your philosophy to match the new existential reality.

    Reply addressees: @ForeignAffairs

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-16 22:50:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824579612724301825

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824315904319955101

  • OUR ETHICS AREN’T CHRISTIAN THEY’RE EUROPEAN Q: CURT: Are you suggesting Europea

    OUR ETHICS AREN’T CHRISTIAN THEY’RE EUROPEAN
    Q: CURT: Are you suggesting European ethics alone didn’t require Abrahamic Christianity as necessary for said evolutionary success of the West as I’m a bit confused with your argument against Abrahamic based religion in its entirety if not willing to “throw the baby out with the bath water” as any dependent attached to its core principles maintains loyalty to what you desire to outlaw. Am I missing something?

    Christianity, and especially “The Christian Destruction of the Ancient World”, created a dark age of ignorance for a thousand years we are still, a thousand years later, struggling to leave behind – and the lingering problems of the vulnerability to the marxist sequence – especially women remain- because marxism is just judaism and christianity brought to it’s economic rather than social conclusion.

    There is nothing in christian morality what wasn’t in greek thought. Despite revisionist efforts, Christianity is a counter-revolution against greek reason, empiricism, law, and the greek invention of money, just as marxism is against the scientific and industrial revolutions.

    The difference is that for european ‘respect merit and status’ one had to be at least middle if not upper class – by demonstrated loyalty in war, homestead, commerce, or politics – preferably all of the above.

    So where only 10% of greeks and romans could develop status and politically participate, christianity made it possible for the slaves (‘slave morality’) peasants (‘serf morality’), women (“child morality”) to claim status and virtue by ‘doing no harm’ instead of ‘doing good’ for the polity.

    That’s it. Christianity is a feminine religion of slaves, serfs, women, that allows a small inexpensive number of priests to regulate the moral behavior of the masses by provision of self image and status without having to demonstrate competency in military, economic, commercial, or political affairs. That’s it. That’s all there is to it.

    The greek and roman world were ‘dumbed down’ from the rational and empirical to the emotional and imaginary so that women, slaves, and serfs could be managed by storytellers. Everything else is in greek and roman thought – even in germanic thought.

    Because the foundation of the west that still is responsible for everything other than the dark ages is due to an accident of the necessity of forming entrepreneurial ventures onto the steppe by coalitions of warriors and the families that paid for their horse, bronze, and steel – creating what we call democracy but what is in fact contractualism: sovereignty.

    The solution to modernity- because modernity means science, technology, and eduction – is to restore the greek religion of heroism, stoicism, the myths, the play, ancestors, nature, the nation, and it’s aristocracy and state.

    A non-false religion of moral submission of self interest to the production of commons for the good of all: The Natural Law of Cooperation.

    Which is the logical consequences of my (our) work.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-16 18:09:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824508768408698880

  • BORDERLANDS (2024) Admittedly, given that (a) I’m the target audience and (b) I

    BORDERLANDS (2024)
    Admittedly, given that (a) I’m the target audience and (b) I use a Roger Ebert criteria for a film – but despite early negative anticipation, I enjoyed the movie for what it is – a hyper-condensed but reasonably faithful representation of the game universe and it’s characters.
    I expected it to be horrible. And it wasn’t. So it was good. 😉
    I can count one hand the video games I’ve played in the past 15 years, and Borderlands 1 and 2 are included.
    So take into consideration that I enjoy both of the Doom movies, and I enjoyed this one – so it may not be your cup of tea. But with reasonable expectations you might enjoy it. ;). I did. 😉

    #BorderlandsMovie #Borderlands

    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-12 21:43:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1823113143377334272