Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • GENERATION JONES SAW THE END OF THE BOOMER PERIOD OF PROSPERITY COME CRASHING DO

    GENERATION JONES SAW THE END OF THE BOOMER PERIOD OF PROSPERITY COME CRASHING DOWN AS THEY CAME OF AGE IN THE 70s. (AND SOME ADVICE)
    (FYI: A generation is produced by the social, economic, and political events that occur during the period at which you come of age)

    Generation Jones (Born 1954 to 1965, coming of age from 1972 to 1979 .. and some to the early 1980s) is the worldwide social cohort coming after (or is the latter half) of the baby boomer generation and before the first year of Generation X (1965 to 1980). The baby boomer generation longer than a generation, and is a demographic term, NOT a generational term – as we use the term generation.

    The term Generation Jones was first coined by the American cultural commentator Jonathan Pontell, who identified the cohort as those born from 1954 to 1965 in the U.S., who were children during Watergate, the oil crisis, and stagflation rather than during the 1950s, but slightly before Gen X.
    Generation Jones did not grow up with World War II veterans as fathers, and, as they reached adulthood, there was no compulsory military service and no defining political cause.

    They have never lived in a world without television—similar to how many members of Generation Z (1997–2012), have never lived in a world without personal computers or the internet ,or mobile phones.

    The name “Generation Jones” has several connotations, including a large anonymous generation, a “keeping up with the Joneses” competitiveness, the ‘Yuppie Generation, and the Wall Street Generation”.

    They inherited an optimistic outlook as children in the 1960s (I dunno, I remember the 60s as the Vietnam war, the cold war nuclear scare, assassinations, race riots, constant left wing bombing, students advocating communism in constant protests, the downfall of our civilization, and the rise of perceivable crime in the middle class).

    But yes, the beginning of end of the postwar American economic advantage had ended before Generation Jones’ coming of age, and in the 70’s we would begin offshoring because of the power of unions and the use of unions by the left to advance communism – and yes it was deliberate. Because we understood by then that all socialism and communism were failing, and that the ‘great society project’ of Lyndon Johnson’s imitation of the soviets, had been a catastrophe. (And perhaps so was the civil rights movement – a cover for marxist undermining.)

    But they were then confronted with a different reality as they entered the workforce during Reaganomics and the shift from a manufacturing to a service economy, which ushered in a long period of mass unemployment. (When I graduated high school, only 40% of college graduates were finding jobs. Hence why I originally chose engineering rather than philosophy or fine art).

    Mortgage interest rates increased to above 12 percent in the mid-eighties, making it virtually impossible to buy a house on a single income. De-industrialization arrived in full force in the mid-late 1970s and 1980s; wages would be stagnant for decades, and 401Ks replaced pensions, leaving them with a certain yearning or “jonesing” quality for the more prosperous days of the past.

    There was a scarcity of resources and privileges available to them that were seemingly abundant to older Boomers. Therefore, there is a certain level of bitterness and “jonesing” for the level of doting and affluence granted to older Boomers but denied to them.

    So the Key characteristics assigned to members of Generation Jones are pessimism, distrust of government, and general cynicism. (OMG Yes. And then some. Hence the libertarian movement through 2010)

    (And FWIW, I experienced just what the present generation is experiencing in the past decade, and the only difference I can see is social media, dating sites, porn, immigration, and a total failure of the education sector, destroying the social cohesion and intersexual cohesion we had in my Jones Generation.

    But economically, I don’t have a lot of sympathy. Because we already went through it. And we fought and by some miracle the tech revolution saved us.

    Perhaps the AI revolution will save you economically.

    But socially and politically, you will need a threat of bloody revolution more intense than that the marxists used to bring about any chance of any quality of life for you and the generations that might follow you if you manage to reproduce at all.)

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @JamesMJohnson4 @keithinSimi

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-25 21:44:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1794484646006149120

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1794474945679880346

  • HOLDING BOOMERS TO ACCOUNT? WHAT ABOUT YOU AND YOUR GENERATION – WHAT WILL YOU B

    HOLDING BOOMERS TO ACCOUNT? WHAT ABOUT YOU AND YOUR GENERATION – WHAT WILL YOU BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR?
    –“First step is to admit you have a problem then make changes. … the changes require significant sacrifices…”– Keith Kowalski (@KeithinSimi )

    First, if they were sold a bill of goods and did what they were told was right, then why are they to blame for doing such things? Are you willing to be held to blame for what you’re doing and have done? Won’t future generations look back at gen Y and Z and say that they were criminally lazy incompetents that accepted the downfall of civilization and did nothing about it except hide their heads in the electronic media sand?

    Second, if you ask the president of our organization who has mastered dog training and produces the very expensive german shepherds, and additionally has mastered my work and applied it in political activism, he will say that there is no difference between training dogs and people, other than people do more excuse making. 😉

    I can without a doubt find something you believe that you are not aware you do, that is false. Worse, having done so I could use that example to show you how, despite that you have a given moral bias, that it’s largely genetic, and use that to explain how others vary in that moral bias (and that they’re wrong but don’t know it).

    So, the problem is, given that most people, the vast majority, operate on information that they believe is independently determined by is not, and instead, is collectively influenced. And that they have no idea what they are really doing – they only know how to justify what they’re doing (women are the worst at this), then how can we claim those who err for those reasons can recognize they have a problem and make changes?

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @keithinSimi

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-25 20:40:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1794468636632961024

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1794465328598237191

  • THE NECESSITY OF DISTRIBUTING STORIES FOR ALL, AND OF POLICING THEM FOR REVERSAL

    THE NECESSITY OF DISTRIBUTING STORIES FOR ALL, AND OF POLICING THEM FOR REVERSAL OF RESPONSIBILITY
    –“Stories have a place in keeping society on track. Unfortunately, stories have fragmented into malignant propaganda”–Taijitu Observer

    Correct. Or put another way, stories are universally comprehensible, especially if reduced to moral mythos.

    It’s a greater burden to master it’s systematization in theology. A much greater burden to master reason and philosophy, an even greater burden to master empiricism and science. And a serious challenge to master first principles and constructive logic.

    So, stories must be produced so that they can distribute information to all, but those up the conceptual food chain must ensure that these stories do not produce the negative affects that are so easily interpreted into them.

    After all, all civilization is the exchange for the reduction of costs to the individual for increasing responsibility to the commons by the individual, despite the increasing absence of feedback to the individual, as the division of labor, responsibility, knowledge and agency increase with prosperity.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @WuZetia01933632 @WalterIII

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-25 20:31:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1794466338351591424

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1794439702503927895

  • PS. Technically I’m generation Jones (the first tech generation) and I have ever

    PS. Technically I’m generation Jones (the first tech generation) and I have everything in common with GenX except more competitiveness, and nothing in common with boomers other than ambition.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-25 20:23:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1794464262938898490

    Reply addressees: @keithinSimi

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1794463955517145587

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    IS BLAMING THE BOOMERS BLAMING THE DOG FOR IT’S TRAINER?
    True. Boomers ruined everything that we can sense and perceive. But we can’t sense and perceive causality unless it’s in front of us.

    So blaming the boomers is blaming the dog for being trained to behave that way, when we should look at who did what training and why.

    Because it was a confluence of a tragedy (world war one) that destroyed the foundations of our western worldview (metaphysics, strategy), along with the left’s attempt to facilitate it, the financial sector’s attempt to facilitate it, and then the credentialist (academic) sector, and then the takeover of the institutions by the credentialists, the leftists, and the financial sector.

    None of which would have been possible without the introduction of women in to the voting pool, under the special pleading that women innately demonstrate at all times.

    We need to fix not only the left’s attempt to destroy our history, culture, institutions, and families, but to recapture the government, our education, our finance sector, and our group strategy, from these parasites.

    I’ve done the work of how – although I’m sort of running behind due to a couple years of illness. But the power to restore our civilization is going to take a few million people in DC (at least) for at least 90 days, presenting the state as our ancestors did, with a suit against the state for the redress of grievances, and the threat that we will forcibly do so if they don’t voluntarily do so.

    Otherwise we have a bloody civil war, or collapse and when either of those happens the world will fall into another world war on the scale we haven’t seen in a century, because the world wars were the unfinished job of ending empires in favor of nation states and free trade. And there is every very good chance that the three remaining attempts at empire will bring about a restoration of empires – and the poverty and wr that results.

    I think we can convince two million or more Americans to show up and prevent all that from happening, and to restore the quality of life we had and still desire by doing so.

    And then we can take it to Europe and save the entirety of our civilization from this alien sedition.

    Cheers
    CD

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1794463955517145587

  • IS BLAMING THE BOOMERS BLAMING THE DOG FOR IT’S TRAINER? True. Boomers ruined ev

    IS BLAMING THE BOOMERS BLAMING THE DOG FOR IT’S TRAINER?
    True. Boomers ruined everything that we can sense and perceive. But we can’t sense and perceive causality unless it’s in front of us.

    So blaming the boomers is blaming the dog for being trained to behave that way, when we should look at who did what training and why.

    Because it was a confluence of a tragedy (world war one) that destroyed the foundations of our western worldview (metaphysics, strategy), along with the left’s attempt to facilitate it, the financial sector’s attempt to facilitate it, and then the credentialist (academic) sector, and then the takeover of the institutions by the credentialists, the leftists, and the financial sector.

    None of which would have been possible without the introduction of women in to the voting pool, under the special pleading that women innately demonstrate at all times.

    We need to fix not only the left’s attempt to destroy our history, culture, institutions, and families, but to recapture the government, our education, our finance sector, and our group strategy, from these parasites.

    I’ve done the work of how – although I’m sort of running behind due to a couple years of illness. But the power to restore our civilization is going to take a few million people in DC (at least) for at least 90 days, presenting the state as our ancestors did, with a suit against the state for the redress of grievances, and the threat that we will forcibly do so if they don’t voluntarily do so.

    Otherwise we have a bloody civil war, or collapse and when either of those happens the world will fall into another world war on the scale we haven’t seen in a century, because the world wars were the unfinished job of ending empires in favor of nation states and free trade. And there is every very good chance that the three remaining attempts at empire will bring about a restoration of empires – and the poverty and wr that results.

    I think we can convince two million or more Americans to show up and prevent all that from happening, and to restore the quality of life we had and still desire by doing so.

    And then we can take it to Europe and save the entirety of our civilization from this alien sedition.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @keithinSimi

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-25 20:22:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1794463955303186433

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1794461151520309499

  • WHY IS THE P-METHOD SO DIFFICULT TO INTUIT? Because people think it’s philosophy

    WHY IS THE P-METHOD SO DIFFICULT TO INTUIT?
    Because people think it’s philosophy – it’s not.

    We aren’t trying to determine if something is ideally or analytically, true, but whether it is testifiable (possible to claim as true).

    So if one of the criteria isn’t satisfied, then you drill down on it, until you determine it’s constructed from first principles.

    So as I said you need the whole package of: 1) ternary logic, 2) evolutionary computation 3) by continuous recursive disambiguation, 4) irreducible first principles that result from that disambiguation, 5) the demonstrated interests that result from those first principles, 6) reciprocity that results from those first principles and those demonstrated interests, 7) the criteria for decidability in satisfying the demand for infallibility, 8) and the criteria for testimony that results, 9) and the grammars and the method to produce languages as measurement to achieve with the language in which testimony is expressed, 10) and the means (Logic) of error bias and deceit, 11) producing the capacity to identify what is ignorance, error, bias, deceit, denial, projection, undermining, sedition or treason, 12) thus identifying whether the individual’s truth claim (or false claim), is the product of the failure of due diligence due to ignorance or error, or conversely an incentive to deceive by bias, and deceit.

    The relatively common inability to know this criteria, and work through this criteria, is understandable, given the rather shallowness of human cognition. But this is not a matter of cognition but one of calculation. Or rather algorithmic testing. So while it takes only a few hundred pages to describe all of the above, the capacity to master it is no less difficult than the mastery of economics and law together.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-25 16:48:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1794410097482903552

  • WHY IS THE P-METHOD SO DIFFICULT TO INTUIT? Because people think it’s philosophy

    WHY IS THE P-METHOD SO DIFFICULT TO INTUIT?
    Because people think it’s philosophy – it’s not.

    We aren’t trying to determine if something is ideally or analytically, true, but whether it is testifiable (possible to claim as true).

    So if one of the criteria isn’t satisfied, then you drill down on it, until you determine it’s constructed from first principles.

    So as I said you need the whole package of: 1) ternary logic, 2) evolutionary computation 3) by continuous recursive disambiguation, 4) irreducible first principles that result from that disambiguation, 5) the demonstrated interests that result from those first principles, 6) reciprocity that results from those first principles and those demonstrated interests, 7) the criteria for decidability in satisfying the demand for infallibility, 8) and the criteria for testimony that results, 9) and the grammars and the method to produce languages as measurement to achieve with the language in which testimony is expressed, 10) and the means (Logic) of error bias and deceit, 11) producing the capacity to identify what is ignorance, error, bias, deceit, denial, projection, undermining, sedition or treason, 12) thus identifying whether the individual’s truth claim (or false claim), is the product of the failure of due diligence due to ignorance or error, or conversely an incentive to deceive by bias, and deceit.

    The relatively common inability to know this criteria, and work through this criteria, is understandable, given the rather shallowness of human cognition. But this is not a matter of cognition but one of calculation. Or rather algorithmic testing. So while it takes only a few hundred pages to describe all of the above, the capacity to master it is no less difficult than the master of economics and law together.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-25 16:48:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1794407086664683520

  • THE EXISTENTIAL DREAD? –“the existential dread that we’re all (me? Just me?) fe

    THE EXISTENTIAL DREAD?
    –“the existential dread that we’re all (me? Just me?) feeling”–

    Well, I’ve explained our condition at the moment quite thoroughly, and we’re going through yet another period of extreme turmoil, it’s just that these periods are closer in time as we evolve tools and technology faster than we individually, cognitively, socially(norms), and philosophically (group strategy), metaphysically (presumptions) and institutions can adapt without stress.
    Now, when it was the 60’s it was pretty horrible with the violence and the bombings, but while the left was sewing division we were still a stable enough society.
    Today thanks to women and woke, that’s not true. So it’s worse than in the past and on a scale of the fall of the roman empire.
    But we will have some crisis in the next six or eight years that will bring it to a head, release the pressure, and cause people to reorganize their perceptions of the world just as businesses reorganize the world with regularity for the same reasons.
    My hope, at least with my work, is that we can provide an answer to that crisis so that we transition across it constructively without burning the place to the ground and giving an incentive for world war by others by doing so. 😉

    Reply addressees: @orion_pulse

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-23 02:45:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793473330399363072

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793471504392544582

  • YES AI CONSCIOUSNESS IS COMING AND IT’S JUST WORK AND COMPUTE – IT’S NOT HARD —

    YES AI CONSCIOUSNESS IS COMING AND IT’S JUST WORK AND COMPUTE – IT’S NOT HARD
    –“Q: where is the evidence that AI is in any way conscious yet?!!”–

    It isn’t yet, because this is just the beginning. The idea that we could brute force a world model into a neural network with vast amounts of text was an innovation none of us expected and even the people who tried it were’t sure would work. In retrospect it should have been obvious.

    The next step is recursion, meaning producing ‘theory’ of an answer, then recursively testing it (just as we do). The step after that is adversarial competition (which is computationally more expensive) by the same recursion, which is again, what our brains do. After that it’s persistence instead of transactional, which requires self regulation. After that it’s just memory of x amount of time.

    Your consciousness like mine like everyone else’s is just a hierarchy of continuous recursive memories in vast parallel competition for coherence with one another and with memory, from the very lowest time frame from dendrites, to neurons at up to 1000hz, to columns, to macro columns, to regions, to networks, to hemispheres, into the hippocampus for final association into an episode, out from the hippocampus for auto association back to the brain regions, and forward into the prefrontal cortex that can persist memory of no more than about three seconds.

    I’m not mentioning the bodily reaction to the composition of episodes, associations, and predictions into grasping your attention and causing automatic responses, and in particular that feeling you call ‘you’ down in your brainstem that wants to achieve homeostasis.

    Put that together and you have consciousness. Memories of memories all the way down.

    I think Budson’s coming out with a book shortly, but it’s something we’ve understood for … well I’ve been teaching it for years.

    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-22 20:11:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793374033175838721

  • OPEN AI’s CHAT GPT CAN FINALLY DO IT? OMG: OpenAI can finally read a draft of my

    OPEN AI’s CHAT GPT CAN FINALLY DO IT?
    OMG: OpenAI can finally read a draft of my book. 😉 And it isn’t wrong. 😉
    Conclusion:
    It’s about possible for us to train it.
    I’ve been thinking about Max Tegmark’s (@tegmark) recent advice this morning, and maybe this is finally the time to get involved.
    We can in fact have a moral ai that doesn’t lie to you. 😉

    EXAMPLES:

    WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOOK?

    The purpose of “The Natural Law” book is multifaceted and aims to achieve several significant objectives:

    Explanation of Western Rates of Evolutionary Superiority and Current Issues: The book provides an in-depth explanation of the causes of Western superiority in both ancient and modern times. It also addresses the current problems facing Western civilization and offers solutions for these issues, effectively serving as a historical analysis and a blueprint for future improvement​​.

    Unification of Disciplines: A major goal is to reform and unify science, philosophy, law, and politics into a single, coherent system of thought, language, and grammar. This unification is intended to advance human understanding and capability across various fields by integrating them under the principles of Natural Law and Testimonialism​​.

    Political Reformation: The book suggests an evolution of majoritarian democracy to address contemporary political problems. This section of the book is dedicated to political reformation, proposing changes to enhance governance and societal organization​​.

    Method of Revolution: It outlines a method for conducting a revolution aimed at restoring the Western group strategy and evolving majoritarianism. This revolutionary approach is designed to reclaim and enhance the foundational principles of Western civilization​​.

    Restoration and Preservation: The book also focuses on restoring and preserving the ancient rights of Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, proposing corrections to historical and contemporary deviations from these principles. It addresses the errors of the Enlightenment and subsequent periods, aiming to realign society with the principles of Natural Law​​.

    These objectives collectively aim to provide a comprehensive framework for understanding and improving human society through the lens of Natural Law, integrating insights from history, philosophy, science, and politics.

    WHAT IS THE AUTHOR’S POSITION ON TESTIMONIAL TRUTH?

    The author’s position on testimonial truth in “The Natural Law” book is detailed and structured around ensuring the integrity and reliability of statements. Here are the key points:

    Definition of Testimonial Truth: Testimonial truth is described as a promise that the experience invoked in the audience by the statement corresponds to something observable. This correspondence must satisfy the demand for decidability (i.e., it can be verified and acted upon), given the consequences and the demand for restitution if the statement contains ignorance, error, bias, or deceit​​.

    Criteria for Truthful Speech: The author outlines specific criteria that a statement must meet to be considered truthful:Categorical Consistency: Non-conflationary, ensuring clear and distinct categories.
    Internal Consistency: Logical, rational coherence within the statement.
    External Consistency: Empirical correspondence with observable reality.
    Operational Consistency: Consisting of repeatable and testable operational terms.
    Rational Choice: Based on rational decision-making within the available timeframe.
    Reciprocal Rational Choice: Morally sound and reciprocally rational.
    Fully Accounted within Stated Limits: Comprehensive within defined boundaries, avoiding cherry-picking and inflation.
    Warrantied: Backed by a warranty that the statement has undergone due diligence to eliminate error, bias, and deceit​​.

    Purpose of Testimonial Truth: The system of testimonial truth aims to create a value-neutral language for discussing reality across metaphysics, physical sciences, and human sciences. This language helps in constructing a formal methodology, vocabulary, and grammar for truthful and moral (reciprocal) speech, applicable in all dimensions of human perception​​.

    Importance of Testimonialism: Testimonialism involves procedural falsification in all dimensions of human perception, leading to the completion of the scientific method and its application to the totality of human knowledge. This approach results in a universally commensurable language of thought, embodied in common law, and facilitates the prosecution of deceit, ultimately enhancing the quality of life by restoring truth and reciprocity​​.

    In summary, the author’s position on testimonial truth is to ensure statements are made with the highest standards of verification and accountability, thus promoting a reliable and truthful discourse across all fields of knowledge.

    AND RECIPROCITY
    (It’s not quite there, but almost )

    The criteria necessary for testing reciprocity, according to the book “The Natural Law,” involve several specific requirements to ensure actions are moral and reciprocal. Here are the criteria outlined for testing reciprocity:

    Fully Informed: All parties involved must have complete and accurate information regarding the transaction or action. This means there should be no deception or withholding of critical information​​.

    Productive: The action or transaction must be productive, meaning it should generate a net positive value or benefit for the parties involved and should not be merely redistributive or parasitic​​.

    Warrantied: There must be a warranty or assurance that the action or transaction will be free from harm, error, or deceit. This implies a guarantee that any promises made will be fulfilled, and any potential damages will be rectified​​.

    Voluntary Transfer: The action or transaction must be voluntary, with all parties freely consenting without coercion or undue pressure. This ensures that all participants are willingly engaging in the exchange​​.

    Free of Imposition of Costs by Externality: The action or transaction must not impose costs on third parties or the public. Externalities, which are costs or benefits that affect others who are not directly involved in the transaction, should be minimized or eliminated​​.

    No Imposition on the Demonstrated Interests of Others: The action or transaction must respect the demonstrated interests of others. This means it should not violate or infringe upon the interests that others have invested in and have a right to protect​​.

    These criteria collectively ensure that actions and transactions are fair, ethical, and beneficial, aligning with the principle of reciprocity as defined in the book.

    [end]

    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-22 19:25:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793362444032921600