Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • MORE ON TRUTH: OBJECTIVE VS SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE (Constructive/Justificationary)

    MORE ON TRUTH: OBJECTIVE VS SCIENTIFIC

    OBJECTIVE (Constructive/Justificationary) – Kantian Rationalism

    – vs. –

    SCIENTIFIC (Deflationary / Falsificationary) – Darwinian/Popperian Science

    1) A justificationary argument would rely on claims of objectivity. (via-positiva)

    2) A deflationary argument would rely on elimination of subjective information. (via-negativa)

    3) We achieve Deflationary (~Objective) speech by removing all subjective content from our speech.

    4) We remove all subjective content from our speech by

    (a) fully expanding all sentences.

    (b) translating those expanded sentences into fully operational language.

    (c) Testing each dimension of perceivable reality for consistency (determinism)

    …i) categorical consistency (identity)

    …ii) internal consistency (logical)

    …iii) external correspondence (empirical consistency)

    …iv) existential consistency (operational language)

    …v) rational consistency (rational choice of rational actor)

    …vi) reciprocal consistency (rational choice of all participating actors)

    …vii) scope consistency (limits of proposition, and full accounting of internal properties and external consequences.)

    (d) Restating the sentence with surviving and failed tests of consistency as a test of coherence.

    6) this process will, in ordinary language, provide tests of whether the speaker in fact understands what he speaks, and that his speech is correspondent, consistent, and coherent in all dimensions. Because it is, as far as I know, impossible to state a coherent and false statement and survive these tests, while at the same time claiming it is ‘truthful’ rather than theoretical, hypothetical, or a guess.

    –“every claim we make”–

    (a) It means that within the LIMITS we assume or propose it is possible to speak truthfully, even if in the ideal sense – unlimited, and ideal truth – we cannot speak ‘the truth’.

    (b) All speech is theoretical but some theoretical speech is trivial (non contradictory, or with implied limits).

    —“Brain in a vat”–

    Rationalist error. since no logic of any dimension (identity, logic, empirical, operational, reciprocal) is sufficient for truth claims, only for tests of internal consistency, then all ordinary language tests must appeal to the next higher dimension (at least – if not all) in order to make truth claim (rather than a proof claim).

    It is very common for rationalists used to justificationary statements, to conflate proof (internal consistency) with truthfulness (consistency, correspondence, and coherence), with True(ideal), and True(analytic).

    So unless you know which ‘true’ you’re using, most rational arguments are just victorian word games.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 12:02:00 UTC

  • “How can we most effectively and probabilistically get as much of our civilizati

    —“How can we most effectively and probabilistically get as much of our civilization to actually conform to Natural Law as much as is necessary to prevent the collapse inevitable on its current trajectory as quickly as possible?I think answering this question in practice rather than theory will very likely to require us to be pragmatic, not idealistic. Having said all of that, what do you offer the average man to motivate him to discipline himself sufficiently to take the responsibility required to fight the war you propose and win? Intellectuals alone does not a revolution make.”—Joel

    (CD: Actually, as far as I know, intellectuals providing solutions for a small number of angry and frustrated young men, always a revolution makes.)

    Curt Doolittle An interestingly phrased question.

    1) i think you are applying the following biases:

    – false consensus bias

    – group attribution error

    – illusion of transparency

    2) There already are more than sufficient numbers to revolt. they only need a plan they think can succeed and leadership.

    3) The question isn’t how many can we get to revolt, but how many can we encourage not resist the revolt.

    4) I don’t put forth belief systems, but institutional recipes that are *easily* operationalized. I put forth criticisms of anything that does not survive deflation into the grammar of incentives which all cognition, emotion, and langauge exists to justify. In other words, I have the direction of causality correct.

    5) What I am offering to the people who might resist revolt is de-financialization, and de-deception, and a rough redistribution of the 20th century’s malappropriation by the upper 1% to the middle and working classes. The full consequences of this redistribution will make it almost impossible for them middle and working classes to dismiss it.

    6) The cost of this is the loss of ability for the media, the public intellectuals, the activists and the politicians both right and left to engage in lying; and the ‘cost’ is that they must take action to prosecute ‘liars’ (for compensation); and then, the other ‘cost’ is the market demand that they gradually learn how to express their middle and working class ethics in rational and reciprocal terms. (which will evolve normally as did rational, statistical, and scientific speech).

    7) Voluntary disassociation as well as association, which will allow people with lower incomes to live near their kin instead of pushing our kin down into mixed neighborhoods where they obtain bad behavior and create class conflict. Right now people associate by tribe (neighborhood) by the cost of homes and the cost of local education. This creates a caste system and low trust rather than a kinship system and high trust.

    The optional costs with extraordinary benefits are:

    1) withdraw copyright protection and replace it with creative commons protection alone (profiting from use). This will destroy the hollywood sector’s ability to produce propaganda.

    2) replace the patent process with whether the produce required extra-market R&D subsidy or whether the patent is purely defensive at the expense of consumers.

    3) vast restructuring of the academy but most importantly, that the academy must carry the student loan debt (direct from the treasury), and can only be paid out of future earnings over ten years.

    (This set of optional changes is quite long. I wont’ go into them.)

    The radical changes are more important:

    10) the devolution of federal (central) powers to the resolution of conflict over property between the states, and repeal of the civil war amendments.

    The preservation of the military, treasury, and insurer of last resort functions. In other words, reducing the federal system to a utility shared by the states or regions.

    11) voluntary secession of any region at the neighborhood level in exchange for assuming their portion of debt in the original currency, including any territorial assets.

    Etc.

    CLOSING

    This is a pretty libertarian solution to the problem. It says ‘you may go your way as long as I may go mine’, while preserving the ONLY value of scale: insurance via military, treasury, ‘insurance’, and judiciary.

    What it does not do is recommend anarchism, but micro-nationalism.

    AFTERWARD

    Markets are the only way to defeat all other method of order – because the higher the velocity of trial and error the greater the retained advantage.

    You can catch up to markets by authoritarianism – that’s evidence.

    Because you can use existing information discovered by trial and error.

    You can spend down accumulated advantage with social democracy – until no more advantage remains to be spent.

    But you cannot defeat markets. Particularly INSURED markets.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 10:46:00 UTC

  • CURT, WHY DO YOU ATTACK CHRISTIANITY? (OR ALL RELIGION) This is a great question

    CURT, WHY DO YOU ATTACK CHRISTIANITY? (OR ALL RELIGION)

    This is a great question but the answer is pretty simple.

    1) I want to know if it is possible to prohibit all forms of deception in public speech, so that my high trust people can continue to practice and improve their high trust civilization.

    2) There are multiple sources of ‘deception’ in history, but very few of those sources of deception are successful at political scale. The primary sources of deception can be identified by examples during the age of the invention of communication in the ancient world: (a) abrahamism(deception by bait and suggestion), (b) augustinian( accommodation / pragmatism), (c) platonism (ideal / utopianism); and their attempts at truth (d) education(stoicism/virtues) or propaganda(good/should), and (e) aristotelianism(description of what exists and works).

    3) In my work I rely on deflation: survival from competition; or what prior generations of philosophers called ‘analysis’, or what you would consider the scientific method: falsification. I attack every definition, every causal proposition, every value attribution, under the presumption that they are all false, biased, wishful thinking, or deceptions, until all I have left are possible (true) statements, that are categorically, logically, empirically, rationally consistent. So I have to break ideas down into their basic parts as ‘what do people want to acquire by saying this?’, and ‘what kinds of lies are they telling themselves and others to justify acquiring it?’ In other words, I attack everything completely until all loading, framing, obscurantism and suggestion, and bias, are eliminated.

    THE ANSWER?

    Because what prevented the completion of the enlightenment and our return to Aristotelianism, Roman Law, and Stoic Education, (or the escape from the lies of abrahamic deception , augustinian pragmatism, platonic idealism ), was our failure to demand total reformation of our church – abandoning Abrahamic deception, abandoning Augustinian accommodation. But preservation of the feminine: the individual service of others. In other words, abandoning everything other than the very, very, simple message of jesus: the extension of infinite love to one another. (Unfortunately, this message was universalist rather than nationalist. As suited the ancient empires. As suits the underclasses rebellion against the various aristocracies.)

    During the mid 20th century, the the American Protestant churches, and the catholic church under Vatican II abandoned defense of europe and doubled-down on the *individual* christ-as-servant strategy, and individual *evangelism*. And while this was the proper use of church teaching, the church retained it’s nonsense abrahamic and augustinian and platonist nonsense.

    So we might say that the churches failed to reform. Or we might say that they lacked knowledge of HOW to reform into secular hero worship of jesus and the saints who ACTED to serve others rather than *god*. As far as I know, The only persons in my lifetime I have can judge as having succeeded in achieving the christian ideals are Mother Theresa, and Pope John Paul. But if we remove the abrahamic spiritualists from the list of saints, and the political propagandists, and political activists, and instead, lionize the servants of the poor that remain then we have in fact, the remains of the christian church. All else is lies.

    So if you want to, and I want to, save western civilization, it is by eliminating the false gods, and lionizing the heroes that really existed. To do so requires at least four archetypes: Alexander and Leonidas(Martial), Aristotle and Zeno(Truth and Reason), The Templars and Explorers(Entrepreneurs and Financiers), and Jesus and (Theresa?) (love and caretakers). And the many thousands of other characters who existed.

    If you want to save your people it is not achieved by lies, but by the knowledge and use of the origins of western civilization: Truth and Reason, Heroism and Excellence, Law and judge and jury, and the markets in everything that result from those institutions.

    Truth is enough. And it is quite possible to extend the involuntary warranty of due diligence against fraud from product(property), and service(action), to information (public speech.)

    *Categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal consistency with defined limits and full a full accounting of internal scope and external consequences.*

    It is trivial to put this into law.

    And the market for non-parasitism via the courts will end by self interest that which we cannot achieve through demand for virtue against self interest.

    And within a generation the west will be restored.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 08:56:00 UTC

  • THE POSTMODERN ALT-RIGHT vs. THE MODERN NEW-RIGHT —“One may say that my use of

    THE POSTMODERN ALT-RIGHT vs. THE MODERN NEW-RIGHT

    —“One may say that my use of “alt-right” is misleading since those who call themselves alt-right do not necessarily agree. Some are just sick of the SJWs, some are nazi’s, a few are disaffected libertarians, others are socialists …. but all of them are anti modernist. They simply reject the pillars of the western philosophical cannon. This is what makes them quintessentially post/anti-modern. To hell with the categorical imperative. To hell with classical liberalism. To hell with moderation. And to hell with judge discovered law.”—Ayelam Valentine Agaliba

    REPEAT THAT. The Alt Right:

    – is post/anti-modern, because it:

    – abandons the categorical imperative.

    – abandons classical liberalism.

    – abandons moderation.

    – abandons judge discovered law.

    I haven’t done this in Propertarianism. I’ve merely extended the suppression of parasitism in product(property) and service(action) to information(speech).

    So in my opinion, I have COMPLETED the modern program – finally.

    And made postmodern discourse into prosecutable fraud.

    The *ONLY* painful bit is that christianity must complete it’s transition to hero worship of jesus and abandon the lies of ‘god’.

    There are no exceptions to truth. Truth is truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 06:30:00 UTC

  • THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS I am not unique, in the assumption that the following w

    THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS

    I am not unique, in the assumption that the following would need to be true in order for the myth to originate:

    – a jewish preacher existed

    – he had followers (disciples)

    – the temple event turned him into a problem.

    – he was crucified for creating that problem.

    – his ‘strategy’ was adopted by his followers (Saul)

    I suspect also that:

    – the betrayal occurred – but i can see that being added.

    – ‘love expansion’ argument was his innovation and an important one.

    And the rest evolved from there.

    That is all that is needed for the formation of the entire mythos.

    THE EVOLUTION AND THE CONSEQUENCES

    – The old testament was added to give the character legitimacy in historical context.

    – The single event was integrated into the then-evolving sun-god cults dominant in the empire but with egyptian, roman, and persian variations. In other words, the new-jews produced a jewish version of the sun god mythos.

    – The sun god mythos was turned against the empires rather than assisting people in integrating into those empires.

    – This strategy of undermining the empires from within through a resistance movement by the women and the underclasses was more successful in the period where empires were powerful.

    – The muslims evolved from a christian cult, and their strategy was more effective in the period when the empires were weak from the plague and the persian – byzantine wars.

    – The Marxist (jewish), postmodernist (christian), and islamist(muslim) techniques evolved as resistance movements – in no small part due to a fear of the darwinian/spencerian/pareto-weber-durkheim/nietzchean/maxwellian revolution. And were conceived as a resistance and rebellion movement (Jewish marxism), a method of undermining the empire in period of weakness (christian postmodernism), and an outright attack on the great civilizations of modernity by invasion, territory claiming (temples/churches), reproduction (depopulation), and terrorism(warfare).

    – The answer to the ancient world and the modern is simply to preserve civilization and prevent jewish and marxist, christian and postmodernism, and muslim and islamicist dark ages, just as we prohibited the communist revolution, and just as the romans tried during the christian prosecutions.

    HISTORICITY

    So far as i can tell, scholarly opinion on the historical figure seems to coalesce on a preacher (storyteller), baptism, followers, temple event, crucifixion.

    This could have been a very, very, minor person, and the events only known to followers, and much like Arthur or Gilgamesh, continually embellished for the purpose of claiming greater wisdom and authority to the speaker, embellished by expansion into a prophet, embellished through the appropriation of the various old world sun god myths, until it was able to spread reliably through anchoring (replacing ) larger earlier figures, rather than originating a new narrative.

    So by appropriating the sun god cult story that had been evolving from its oldest form in egypt to its persian form (mithras) to its third iteration in the roman for (sol invictus) it could turn the sun god cuts from positives that assisted people in integrating into the ancient empires, into a resistance movement that sought to destroy those empires.

    And without the licensing of the rebellion by constantine, and ending the persecution of rebels, and the forcible conversion of rome to it later, and the closure of the schools, and the collapse of rome eighty years later, the project would not have been successful.

    And we might have been weakened by the plagues, but never been defeated by the muslims and never had such a dark age, and the spread of abrahamic ignorance across the entire old world.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-03 02:21:00 UTC

  • THE JQ AND THEIR TRANSFORMATION IN THE USA Jews that immigrated to the USA from

    THE JQ AND THEIR TRANSFORMATION IN THE USA

    Jews that immigrated to the USA from the borderland (Russian / eastern european) and from the various urban ghettos were absurdly superstitious unclean, people and considered barbarous and ignorant – lots of documentation. Their intellectual capital was (as is always under abrahamic ignorance) frozen. That is why despite being the most literate population they achieved nothing in all of history. WHat liberated their human capital was western rule of law and aristotelianism – just as it liberated western capital after the superstition of the church was overthrown with empiricism and the printing press. (just as conversely, the roman empire collapsed within 80 years of the forcible conversion of the polity to christianity in order to destroy the influence of the aristocracy – because the aristocracy performed civic religious rituals – not a specialized priesthood.)

    The criticism of the jews at that time was correct. The mid century criticism of jewish immorality in business was correct. The current criticism of specializing in the ‘immoral’ trades (advertising, media, film, pornography, ‘lawyering’, financialism, propaganda, and academy) is also true. The question is whether that is their fault for specializing in immorality, or our fault for allowing them to immigrate and not legislating against the ability to exploit high trust populations by various forms of hazard creation – it’s not like they had not specialized in hazard creation in money lending, and rent seeking sectors throughout their history. They have always concentrated capital then used it against host populations. It is the most profitable industry ever invented by man after conquering and taxation. Deception and moral hazard free of warranty, are far more profitable industries that truth, warranty and productivity.

    The fact that we let spread the industrialization of lying using propaganda to create moral hazard because it was advantageous in the sale of the conquered continent, and advantageous of the expansion of military power prior to the wars, and advantageous in the conquest of the european empires during their civil war, and advantages when we translated it into expansion of the working classes in the post war era to promote consumption, is just utilitarian. The problem is that we’re stuck with the consequences now until we are willing to suppress the abuse of public speech as we did prior to the first world war.

    So you can blame subsaharan africans for a standard deviation lower intelligence, greater socialization needs, and more rapid and deeper sexual maturity, or you can blame white northeastern americans for defeating the south and killing half a million kinsmen instead of one of the options of buying the slaves back and paying to send them home to africa, or giving them their own agrarian territory so that they could form their own communities and take care of themselves; and never relocating them using the soviet method to white industrial centers and destroying their families and culture that had just taken root in the south. THe same for jews: if you import a group of people who have evolved over a few thousand years without going through the agrarian phase of self domestication, and instead who have specialized in financial and other forms of parasitism upon host communities, then whose fault is it that people behave ase they do? When you give women an the underclass the franchise without demanding evidence that they will not put it to misuse (parasitism) then whose fault is it? I mean, yo don’t beat a dog for being a dog. You train the owner so that he does not give opportunity to be revolting in the presence of civilized humans.

    The fact that white europeans (according to Lynn – I’ve talked to him about it directly) have lost the same iq points as jews hold in advantage over whites at the moment, is due to the profiteering we have used under commercial capitalism to expand the reproduction of the lower and underclasses, and thereby reversed at least a thousand years of aggressively hanging every criminal possible, winter starvation, cold, plague, prevention from reproduction by domestic service, prevention of reproduction by manorialism by limiting access to land. Prevention of reproduction by late marriage under manorialism. And of course, war.

    The single best method of improving the genetic, normative, social, economic, and political conditions of a people is to reduce the size of the underclass until there is sufficient labor shortage that there is demand for young and old in the labor pool.

    While western civilization has always been eugenic, we have reversed it in the capitalist era – to our detriment, and to, apparently, the planet’s.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-02 16:24:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIAN AND CONSERVATIVE CRITICS OF THE ALT RIGHT AND NEW RIGHT The evidence

    http://www.scifiwright.com/2017/07/doctor-of-common-sense-and-zo/FOR LIBERTARIAN AND CONSERVATIVE CRITICS OF THE ALT RIGHT AND NEW RIGHT

    The evidence of the failure of libertarianism and conservatism is provided by the fact that conservatives have ONLY produced moral literature of moral equivocation and naturalistic fallacy, and NEVER produced a rational, or ratio-scientific literature with which to defend themselves against Abrahamism and Platonism in the ancient world (judaism/christianity/islam), or Abrahamism in the modern world (classical liberal equalitarianism(Middle Class), Feminism(Women), Marxism(Labor), or Postmodern Identitarianism(Slaves)) – or against the methods of argument used in deceitful discourse (Pseudo-Myth(Supernaturalism), Pseudo-Rationalism(Platonic Idealism, Postmodern Lit.), and Pseudo-Science (Boazianism, Marxism, Freudianism,Cantorianism).

    The Alt Right has adopted the techniques of the marxists and postmodernists which is to abandon reason and merely propagandize, rally, shame ridicule, silence by volume, poisoning any discourse it can intrude upon in order to hindre emotional momentum, and directly engaging in opposition violence when possible, and to defeat the left when possible by letting the left demonstrate their character.

    The New Right (Myself) has abandoned the classical liberal project, the presumption of hopefulness that political bias is other than expression of individual and group evolutionary strategy: a proxy for war. And that any further debate is futile, and that only violence to bring about the restoration of the traditional compromises between the genders and classes – and if not possible, return to the subjugation of female genders and under classes. But that the status quo or the left’s further conquest of the west (for the second time) is not tolerable – even less tolerable than civil war.

    Now like any movement there are a tiny number of thought leaders, a small number of ideological leaders, a large number of agitators, communicators, and propagandists, and even larger numbers of sympathizers and advocates, and the main body of interested but uncommitted followers. As one would expect, the right does not consolidate into a single equalitarian body (as do females), but separates into tribes (as do males) using their own sentiments, language, arguments, and leaders. Right and men seek hunting packs with similar but specific agendas designed for rapid change, not a herd (and women and underclasses) with a loose directional agenda of incremental but continuous improvement.

    On the alt right, (although they dislike this analysis intensely), it is fairly clear that the tribes have organized around class lines (and rougnly IQ) and method of argument that *reflects their social competency*. And that evidence appears as the the nat-soc(threats), green-frogs(antagonism), masculinists and rationalists (resistance), classical liberals and traditionalists (active opposition), various scientists HBD, RR, etc (refutation), Rule of Law/philosophers(Solution Definition), Traditionalists (wishful thinkers – historical escapists), literary occultists like evola, nietzsche ( literary escapists / shamers), and techo-libertarians (tech escapists), new-age/pseudoscientists (conspiracy theorists and pseudoscience escapists).

    My opinion, as someone who has seen this transition (cycle) coming, and worked on it for many years, is that for the tribes of men to unite, those men need (a) a moral license, (b) a solution to demand (c) a plan of transition to the new solution (d) a strategy, tactics, and leadership by which to raise the cost of the status quo, until the demanded solution or a compromise is met. In other words, men need an objective to fight for using the methods of conflcit that they know how to employ. And our job is to succeed where the conservatives in ALL THEIR ITERATIONS since Burke first launched his criticism, have FAILED TO PRODUCE.

    We are in a cold civil war. That civil war can turn hot at any moment. I expect it to. The question is, who has that solution?

    Or rather, who ELSE has that solution?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    =====

    IN RESPONSE TO:

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-02 15:47:00 UTC

  • I FEEL I NEED TO REMIND YOU OF SOMETHING (MEANING VS TRUE) I am trying to end th

    I FEEL I NEED TO REMIND YOU OF SOMETHING (MEANING VS TRUE)

    I am trying to end the ability to lie to my high trust people and to manipulate them into ignorance, stagnation, and genocide by means of suggestion using the invention of abrahamism.

    So while you might find something MEANINGFUL and there fore valuable, I am conducting a FULL ACCOUNTING of the consequences of your producing, communicating, and obtaining MEANING by the various modes of communication.

    So, yes, while I understand you may like heavily loaded emotional expression and the free association that is invoked by taking you close to the dream state, I also know that you are suggestible in that state, and that through suggestion you can obtain meaning at the cost of implanting in you things that seed your destruction.

    This is the secret to abrahamism.

    This is why I am trying to kill abrahamism: because it is a method of deception. And this is why I am trying to destroy platonism: because it is a means of obscuring one’s ignorance.

    So when I say something against christianity, or nietzsche, or evola, or any of the european philosophers and … fuzzy thinkers… it’s because they are more heavily infected with abrahamism and platonism than are the Americans, who are tediously reduced to little other than law: the constitution is a bible.

    In other words THE PRICE OF EASY KNOWLEDGE more readily intuited is far higher than the benefit you obtain by the discounted method of communication.

    You were taught to read, to measure, to do simple mathematics, to do complex mathematics, and to do basic human scale physics, and to at least understand biology and chemistry and micro and macro physics. And if you were very lucky you might have been taught the basics of money, accounting, finance, economics. And rarely the practice and use of law.

    So why is it that you feel you can learn morality by simply literature?

    WHy isn’t morality calculable as is every other field.

    It is. But it’s harder to access. It’s harder to learn. It’s harder to use. It’s far more like understanding how to program computers with a very limited vocabulary and a very limited set of possible operations and only one method of comparison: reciprocity.

    So while I am slaying your sacred cows and the investments you have made in obtaining meaning that is easy and emotionally entangled for you, the purpose is moral and profound

    To save you and our people from deceit and extermination.

    And the cost is merely learning how to ‘read’, write, listen and speak in very simple language. A language that makes it very hard to lie.

    And if you are unwilling to pay that cost, then you are part of the reason we have been defeated by abrahamists in the ancient world, and more recently in the modern.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 18:30:00 UTC

  • NIETZSCHE AND EVOLA Nietzsche and evola were trying to free us from christianity

    NIETZSCHE AND EVOLA

    Nietzsche and evola were trying to free us from christianity, but failed to escape abrahamism: the occult.

    Nietzche used personal emotional suffering as the person’s trial, rather than demonstrated competition in reality as did homer’s achilles.

    In this sense, Nietzche only managed to transition from abrahamic slave morality to platonist morality : the morality of the dream state – the imagination.

    So Nietzche and Evola are still supernatural (Occult) fantasies that seek only psychological achievement, not demonstrable achievement. Nietzche and evola create a heaven of the mind, not a heaven on this earth – created by and owned by and rule by men.

    If you come to understand this you will understand why I seek demonstration in reality not belief. And why I ridicule the occultists for hallucinations rather than demonstrations.

    There is no higher aristocracy than one that is made by action. And that is homer’s Achilles Ordeal, Odysseus’s Ordeal before the bronze age collapse, Alexander’s Ordeal and Fall after the bronze age restoration, and Aeneas ordeal in rome.

    The future will treat Napoleon, Stalin, and Hitler the same.

    And in the present it is our time. Our era. Our life times during which the next set of myths will be created – or a dark age will follow.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 09:59:00 UTC

  • WHY IS PHILOSOPHY EVEN AN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE? One could argue that philosophy t

    WHY IS PHILOSOPHY EVEN AN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE?

    One could argue that philosophy treat its publications as does mathematics, with prohibiting publications of work by those still in the process of getting an education.

    Although papers in mathematics are far less embarrassing than papers in philosophy, history, and literature. I mean, I have no idea what submissions look like to you, but every time I go through a stack of publications I’m horrified by the quality of the work. Until philosophy follows physics and psychology into the use of operational language – which is what I work on – the discipline will continue to produce thirty one flavors – permutations – of expression of the same concepts producing little more than alternative decorations of the same furniture.

    I mean, what philosophy of any substance has been produced in the past decade? I am not sure that since Kripke, anyone has said anything of substance. And Even Kripke is better explained by Turing and Godel.)

    I fact, the only meaningful work of philosophy that I know of was produced in psychology by Haidt, who connected political behavior to moral intuitions to evolutionary biology and brain structures.

    And so, why would anyone study something other than cognitive science, experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, economics, the common law, and voting patterns – other than to continue a century of what appears to be malinvestment in pseudo-scientific fantasy moral literature?

    I mean, isn’t your article’s argument nothing more than one of creating a narrow monopoly for the purpose of rent seeking? That’s basic economics.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-01 09:31:00 UTC