Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE EQUILIBRIUM OF CHURCH AND STATE The beauty of Christianity. It’s all nothing

    THE EQUILIBRIUM OF CHURCH AND STATE

    The beauty of Christianity. It’s all nothing but nonsense but the single grain of truth inside it, is enough to create the goods that result from it. Unfortunately, one cannot politicize christian ethics, morality, and mythology without producing a suicidal social order (as we have seen in the west). We too often forget that the church arose as a peer to the martial aristocracy and that the competition between the two – the more feminine church, over family, charity, and mythology, and the more masculine aristocracy, over property, and rule of law. When law interferes with the church, or church interferes with law, both fail to preserve the equilibrium: they each provide LIMITS to the other. The limit of christianity is that which we can individually act upon. The limit of politics is that which we collectively must act upon. For christianity to survive at all – which looks currently bleak – requires we restore the equilibrium between the feminine church and the masculine aristocracy, so that both provide the necessary goods, but each is limited from producing it’s bads – by limiting christianity to the personal, and limiting the state to the collective.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-11 10:30:00 UTC

  • The Equilibrium Of Church And State

    The beauty of Christianity. It’s all nothing but nonsense but the single grain of truth inside it, is enough to create the goods that result from it. Unfortunately, one cannot politicize christian ethics, morality, and mythology without producing a suicidal social order (as we have seen in the west). We too often forget that the church arose as a peer to the martial aristocracy and that the competition between the two – the more feminine church, over family, charity, and mythology, and the more masculine aristocracy, over property, and rule of law. When law interferes with the church, or church interferes with law, both fail to preserve the equilibrium: they each provide LIMITS to the other. The limit of christianity is that which we can individually act upon. The limit of politics is that which we collectively must act upon. For christianity to survive at all – which looks currently bleak – requires we restore the equilibrium between the feminine church and the masculine aristocracy, so that both provide the necessary goods, but each is limited from producing it’s bads – by limiting christianity to the personal, and limiting the state to the collective.

  • The Equilibrium Of Church And State

    The beauty of Christianity. It’s all nothing but nonsense but the single grain of truth inside it, is enough to create the goods that result from it. Unfortunately, one cannot politicize christian ethics, morality, and mythology without producing a suicidal social order (as we have seen in the west). We too often forget that the church arose as a peer to the martial aristocracy and that the competition between the two – the more feminine church, over family, charity, and mythology, and the more masculine aristocracy, over property, and rule of law. When law interferes with the church, or church interferes with law, both fail to preserve the equilibrium: they each provide LIMITS to the other. The limit of christianity is that which we can individually act upon. The limit of politics is that which we collectively must act upon. For christianity to survive at all – which looks currently bleak – requires we restore the equilibrium between the feminine church and the masculine aristocracy, so that both provide the necessary goods, but each is limited from producing it’s bads – by limiting christianity to the personal, and limiting the state to the collective.

  • We Are Speciating

    (important post) —“My point is that a philosophy that puts emphasis on truth telling is distinct from a philosophy that views truth or deceit as just tools for social manipulation. Are we living in reality, the world, which exists independent of human perception and is indifferent to it, to which we need to adapt ourselves in order to survive – or are we living in a socially constructed world that depends on a group consensus which is manufactured with specific social goals in mind. In the former, truth matters more because it gives us an advantage in perceiving reality, in the latter it doesn’t because only social “truths” matter. Violence is an honest approach which an accurate perception of reality facilitates, deceit is an indirect overcoming of immediate weakness, an adaptation that a weaker (in terms of violence) competitor would employ. Deceit as a political strategy of the left would then be an adaptation to the success of truth. Or, lacking a material way to compete, deceit would be used to trick the superior into believing they occupy an inferior position, etc.”— A Friend Truth and violence – truth requires violence. Deceit may or may not require violence. Hence we must master violence. Well, you’re again, trapped in your own frame, but you’re insightful and you are arguing to incentives rather than norms so you’ve progressed farther than most ever will. But, Instead (a) a science consists in a coherent, consistent, and correspondent, method of decidability independent of goals. (b) a philosophy consists of coherent and consistent method of decision making in pursuit of some anticipated goals. (c) a religion consists of a normative contract to adhere to a method of decision making, in pursuit of some anticipated goals, regardless of correspondence, and with the minimum coherence and consistency. (d) an ideology consists of a set of narratives without constraint of correspondence, coherence, or consistency, for the purpose of achieving a political end under majoritarianism (democracy). So when you say: —“Are we living in reality, the world, which exists independent of human perception and is indifferent to it to which we need to adapt ourselves in order to survive”— Meaning, “Do we make our decisions scientifically.” —“or are we living in a socially constructed world that depends on a group consensus which is manufactured with specific social goals in mind”— Meaning “Do we make our decisions according to an ideology or a religion?” (I have never found a philosophy practiced in politics except via cherry picking among some set of them.) Well, we make our decisions by science, philosophy, religion and ideology, (a spectrum of declining truth), given their utility to us. So each of us cherry picks a portfolio of decidability from that list. We are living in an objective reality. We act in that reality according to our interests. We justify those interests with narratives (excuses). For some of us truth(Science) is an advantage (eugenic meritocracy), and for some of us truth is a disadvantage (dysgenic equality), and fiction (‘fictionalisms’) is an advantage. In Propertarianism I merged philosophy, logic, and science into a single vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. Now, with that science, logic, and philosophy you can *describe* every single political order truthfully, because as a science, propertarianism provides commensurability (perfect commensurability). (The question is whether I can make it into a religion. That may be what is required for our people. Adherence by contract to the truth may be better than pressing each individual into mastering it – for costs alone.) Now, one can use science to develop a plan, philosophy, religion, or ideology to advance your interests, or you can use a fictionalism to develop a plan, an ideology, and a religion. Does that science, logic, and philosophy mean that the left can construct their ideology and religion truthfully? Well, yes. Does that mean they need to? No. They can function by creating fictionalisms – they HAVE TO because truth means they must admit inferiority. Does it mean we need to construct our science, logic, philosophy, and law scientifically? Yes. Because that is our group evolutionary strategy – and it is the optimum group evolutionary strategy. The only reason we are in the current position was our failure to state our group evolutionary strategy honestly. Truth is our advantage, and always has been. So the advice I would give to all of us given my studies, is that our reproductive differences were equilibrated as hunter gatherers. They were disequilibrated by the necessity of property leading to a new compromise between the genders that we call ‘marriage’. And that in the present era, we are now wealthy enough to express our reproductive strategies in non-universal means. As such *WE ARE SPECIATING* according to our differences in reproductive strategies – just as all species speciate according to differences in reproductive strategy and advantage. And as such we have only two choices: being defeated so they win, defeating the others so we win, or separating and creating a market in which either or both many win. And I think this question is the question of our time. the era of monopoly is over. Universalism is dead. It was all a convenience of wars of religion under agrarianism. If you grasp this it is profound.

  • We Are Speciating

    (important post) —“My point is that a philosophy that puts emphasis on truth telling is distinct from a philosophy that views truth or deceit as just tools for social manipulation. Are we living in reality, the world, which exists independent of human perception and is indifferent to it, to which we need to adapt ourselves in order to survive – or are we living in a socially constructed world that depends on a group consensus which is manufactured with specific social goals in mind. In the former, truth matters more because it gives us an advantage in perceiving reality, in the latter it doesn’t because only social “truths” matter. Violence is an honest approach which an accurate perception of reality facilitates, deceit is an indirect overcoming of immediate weakness, an adaptation that a weaker (in terms of violence) competitor would employ. Deceit as a political strategy of the left would then be an adaptation to the success of truth. Or, lacking a material way to compete, deceit would be used to trick the superior into believing they occupy an inferior position, etc.”— A Friend Truth and violence – truth requires violence. Deceit may or may not require violence. Hence we must master violence. Well, you’re again, trapped in your own frame, but you’re insightful and you are arguing to incentives rather than norms so you’ve progressed farther than most ever will. But, Instead (a) a science consists in a coherent, consistent, and correspondent, method of decidability independent of goals. (b) a philosophy consists of coherent and consistent method of decision making in pursuit of some anticipated goals. (c) a religion consists of a normative contract to adhere to a method of decision making, in pursuit of some anticipated goals, regardless of correspondence, and with the minimum coherence and consistency. (d) an ideology consists of a set of narratives without constraint of correspondence, coherence, or consistency, for the purpose of achieving a political end under majoritarianism (democracy). So when you say: —“Are we living in reality, the world, which exists independent of human perception and is indifferent to it to which we need to adapt ourselves in order to survive”— Meaning, “Do we make our decisions scientifically.” —“or are we living in a socially constructed world that depends on a group consensus which is manufactured with specific social goals in mind”— Meaning “Do we make our decisions according to an ideology or a religion?” (I have never found a philosophy practiced in politics except via cherry picking among some set of them.) Well, we make our decisions by science, philosophy, religion and ideology, (a spectrum of declining truth), given their utility to us. So each of us cherry picks a portfolio of decidability from that list. We are living in an objective reality. We act in that reality according to our interests. We justify those interests with narratives (excuses). For some of us truth(Science) is an advantage (eugenic meritocracy), and for some of us truth is a disadvantage (dysgenic equality), and fiction (‘fictionalisms’) is an advantage. In Propertarianism I merged philosophy, logic, and science into a single vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. Now, with that science, logic, and philosophy you can *describe* every single political order truthfully, because as a science, propertarianism provides commensurability (perfect commensurability). (The question is whether I can make it into a religion. That may be what is required for our people. Adherence by contract to the truth may be better than pressing each individual into mastering it – for costs alone.) Now, one can use science to develop a plan, philosophy, religion, or ideology to advance your interests, or you can use a fictionalism to develop a plan, an ideology, and a religion. Does that science, logic, and philosophy mean that the left can construct their ideology and religion truthfully? Well, yes. Does that mean they need to? No. They can function by creating fictionalisms – they HAVE TO because truth means they must admit inferiority. Does it mean we need to construct our science, logic, philosophy, and law scientifically? Yes. Because that is our group evolutionary strategy – and it is the optimum group evolutionary strategy. The only reason we are in the current position was our failure to state our group evolutionary strategy honestly. Truth is our advantage, and always has been. So the advice I would give to all of us given my studies, is that our reproductive differences were equilibrated as hunter gatherers. They were disequilibrated by the necessity of property leading to a new compromise between the genders that we call ‘marriage’. And that in the present era, we are now wealthy enough to express our reproductive strategies in non-universal means. As such *WE ARE SPECIATING* according to our differences in reproductive strategies – just as all species speciate according to differences in reproductive strategy and advantage. And as such we have only two choices: being defeated so they win, defeating the others so we win, or separating and creating a market in which either or both many win. And I think this question is the question of our time. the era of monopoly is over. Universalism is dead. It was all a convenience of wars of religion under agrarianism. If you grasp this it is profound.

  • Peterson (Teacher) Vs Doolittle (Judge) But Otherwise Very Similar

    We teach so that we identify opportunities and avoid pitfalls, and we judge so that we limit opportunities to the reciprocal, and retaliate against profiting from pitfalls. Peterson : Wisdom (Lit.) Doolittle: Law (Science) —“Jordan Curt Doolittle Peterson, Kiev Ukraine.”— TheForging545 Unfortunately, Peterson’s version of ‘Truth’ (as we saw in him crash and burn in the Harris debate) is not Truth in the western (legal) sense, but wisdom in the semitic (literary) sense. While Peterson is unknowingly reconstructing stoicism in literature, I’m knowingly reconstructing it in science, philosophy, and law. 😉 But I can understand the appeal of wisdom and literature over algorithm, science, and law. Intuition is much cheaper and easier than calculation. 😉

  • PETERSON (TEACHER) VS DOOLITTLE (JUDGE) BUT OTHERWISE VERY SIMILAR We teach so t

    PETERSON (TEACHER) VS DOOLITTLE (JUDGE) BUT OTHERWISE VERY SIMILAR

    We teach so that we identify opportunities and avoid pitfalls, and we judge so that we limit opportunities to the reciprocal, and retaliate against profiting from pitfalls.

    Peterson : Wisdom (Lit.) Doolittle: Law (Science)

    —“Jordan Curt Doolittle Peterson, Kiev Ukraine.”— TheForging545

    Unfortunately, Peterson’s version of ‘Truth’ (as we saw in him crash and burn in the Harris debate) is not Truth in the western (legal) sense, but wisdom in the semitic (literary) sense. While Peterson is unknowingly reconstructing stoicism in literature, I’m knowingly reconstructing it in science, philosophy, and law. 😉 But I can understand the appeal of wisdom and literature over algorithm, science, and law. Intuition is much cheaper and easier than calculation. ;)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-10 11:22:00 UTC

  • Peterson (Teacher) Vs Doolittle (Judge) But Otherwise Very Similar

    We teach so that we identify opportunities and avoid pitfalls, and we judge so that we limit opportunities to the reciprocal, and retaliate against profiting from pitfalls. Peterson : Wisdom (Lit.) Doolittle: Law (Science) —“Jordan Curt Doolittle Peterson, Kiev Ukraine.”— TheForging545 Unfortunately, Peterson’s version of ‘Truth’ (as we saw in him crash and burn in the Harris debate) is not Truth in the western (legal) sense, but wisdom in the semitic (literary) sense. While Peterson is unknowingly reconstructing stoicism in literature, I’m knowingly reconstructing it in science, philosophy, and law. 😉 But I can understand the appeal of wisdom and literature over algorithm, science, and law. Intuition is much cheaper and easier than calculation. 😉

  • Christianity And Natural Law

    Christianity is reducible to the extension of kinship trust to non kin. What we call ‘Christian Love’ means treating others as kin. Now, Natural Law is reducible to reciprocity. But it turns out that being very forgiving, over time, is the best possible cooperative strategy. While we evolved altruistic punishment for the untrustworthy (violators of reciprocity), meaning that we retaliate at high cost against ‘cheaters’ (untrustworthy), it turns out that exhausting forgiveness produces the highest trust polity, and by consequence the most prosperous. Unfortunately, the limit of such tolerance is in interpersonal relationships and does not scale AT ALL. And so christian tolerance in politics and group evolutionary strategy is suicidal, even if christian tolerance in interpersonal relations is extremely beneficial. The reason being is that an individual can eventually know the limit of tolerance for another, while none of us can know the exhaustion of tolerance for those we do not personally know. As such all christian tolerance and charity is limited to the interpersonal, and all political tolerance is limited to reciprocity. Because the moment we engage in political charity or unlimited charity we create the very evil that we seek to eliminate through our tolerance. Or in economic terms: if you subsidize any behavior you will always get more of it. This is not true on an interpersonal scale, but it is always true beyond the interpersonal scale. Worse, there are many people who seek virtue signals (status) by giving away that which others produced. They steal status from others by this means. So tolerance, especially christian tolerance, beyond the personal scale, where you pay the costs of your charity yourself, merely creates more evil in the world. For this reason most christians are anything but. They are just seeking self congratulatory virtues without actually earning them – but instead, they become bad people in and of themselves, and subsidize bad people in politics, and subsidize bad people in the community. As such christianity is a defect if practiced on other than the interpersonal scale. So the optimum strategy is “A Prosecutor in Politics, and a Saint in Person.” Christianity became suicidal when it became political rather than merely personal. So so natural law then provides us with an equilibrium of the via-negativa and the-via positiva: the via-negativa (law) being reciprocity, while the via positive (wisdom) being interpersonal exhaustion of opportunity for cooperation. You see, this is why science and scientific law are so important: so that those who pretend they are good are not able to create evil on vast scales under cloak of moral intentions. If you bear no sacrifice, you can earn no virtue. Period. And that is a necessary consequence of the natural law of reciprocity.

  • CHRISTIANITY AND NATURAL LAW Christianity is reducible to the extension of kinsh

    CHRISTIANITY AND NATURAL LAW

    Christianity is reducible to the extension of kinship trust to non kin. What we call ‘Christian Love’ means treating others as kin. Now, Natural Law is reducible to reciprocity. But it turns out that being very forgiving, over time, is the best possible cooperative strategy. While we evolved altruistic punishment for the untrustworthy (violators of reciprocity), meaning that we retaliate at high cost against ‘cheaters’ (untrustworthy), it turns out that exhausting forgiveness produces the highest trust polity, and by consequence the most prosperous.

    Unfortunately, the limit of such tolerance is in interpersonal relationships and does not scale AT ALL. And so christian tolerance in politics and group evolutionary strategy is suicidal, even if christian tolerance in interpersonal relations is extremely beneficial. The reason being is that an individual can eventually know the limit of tolerance for another, while none of us can know the exhaustion of tolerance for those we do not personally know. As such all christian tolerance and charity is limited to the interpersonal, and all political tolerance is limited to reciprocity.

    Because the moment we engage in political charity or unlimited charity we create the very evil that we seek to eliminate through our tolerance. Or in economic terms: if you subsidize any behavior you will always get more of it. This is not true on an interpersonal scale, but it is always true beyond the interpersonal scale.

    Worse, there are many people who seek virtue signals (status) by giving away that which others produced. They steal status from others by this means. So tolerance, especially christian tolerance, beyond the personal scale, where you pay the costs of your charity yourself, merely creates more evil in the world.

    For this reason most christians are anything but. They are just seeking self congratulatory virtues without actually earning them – but instead, they become bad people in and of themselves, and subsidize bad people in politics, and subsidize bad people in the community.

    As such christianity is a defect if practiced on other than the interpersonal scale. So the optimum strategy is “A Prosecutor in Politics, and a Saint in Person.” Christianity became suicidal when it became political rather than merely personal.

    So so natural law then provides us with an equilibrium of the via-negativa and the-via positiva: the via-negativa (law) being reciprocity, while the via positive (wisdom) being interpersonal exhaustion of opportunity for cooperation.

    You see, this is why science and scientific law are so important: so that those who pretend they are good are not able to create evil on vast scales under cloak of moral intentions.

    If you bear no sacrifice, you can earn no virtue. Period.

    And that is a necessary consequence of the natural law of reciprocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-10 11:06:00 UTC