Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The Danger of Philosophy

    THE DANGER OF PHILOSOPHY I read “Infinity” by Brian Clegg back in the early 00’s, and was struck by his observation that many of those who study it developed psychological problems. Someone said to me last winter, that reading my work had turned humans into zoo animals for mere observation, and decreasing empathy with their experiences.

    And it’s true that propertarianism reduces sociology and psychology and pretty much all human action into an analysis of acquisition and defense of property, and the various signals that we display to negotiate success at both. I have always thought of most people as terribly dim creatures (i usually call them zombies) that I must ensure do not hurt me out of ignorance. As a child I though peers mere animals. Most adults dangerous idiots to be managed. In my teens, I thought everyone was just evil. Then in my twenties, to my horror, I understood that they were just incompetent, and I tried to become a teacher. In my forties I tried to be paternalistic, realizing that you cannot teach zombies many tricks. And in the past decade, it has become clear to me that I have lost a lot of empathy with people because I am now operating by cognitive rules that are as alien to the secularist, as superstition is the scientist, – and that my work has reduced my subconscious evaluation of most people to gene machines that I must just negotiate with. I am an alien now in this world. I think this has dramatically influenced my moral intuitions. Meanwhile, I still have human impulses for human contact and experience. I try to keep people at an emotional and intellectual distance. And this leads me to an interesting conclusion: have I, for all intents and purposes, between tragic stresses the 00’s, and my reductionism of man, become victim to the same consequences as the authors of infinity? I think this is not the right analysis. It’s rather this in both the case of infinity and propertarianism: have I managed to transcend? Have I gone mad in some poetic sense? Or is there really any difference between transcendence and madness other than the desire you feel to interact with others – such that you transcend if you do not care, and you go mad if you do?

  • The Danger of Philosophy

    THE DANGER OF PHILOSOPHY I read “Infinity” by Brian Clegg back in the early 00’s, and was struck by his observation that many of those who study it developed psychological problems. Someone said to me last winter, that reading my work had turned humans into zoo animals for mere observation, and decreasing empathy with their experiences.

    And it’s true that propertarianism reduces sociology and psychology and pretty much all human action into an analysis of acquisition and defense of property, and the various signals that we display to negotiate success at both. I have always thought of most people as terribly dim creatures (i usually call them zombies) that I must ensure do not hurt me out of ignorance. As a child I though peers mere animals. Most adults dangerous idiots to be managed. In my teens, I thought everyone was just evil. Then in my twenties, to my horror, I understood that they were just incompetent, and I tried to become a teacher. In my forties I tried to be paternalistic, realizing that you cannot teach zombies many tricks. And in the past decade, it has become clear to me that I have lost a lot of empathy with people because I am now operating by cognitive rules that are as alien to the secularist, as superstition is the scientist, – and that my work has reduced my subconscious evaluation of most people to gene machines that I must just negotiate with. I am an alien now in this world. I think this has dramatically influenced my moral intuitions. Meanwhile, I still have human impulses for human contact and experience. I try to keep people at an emotional and intellectual distance. And this leads me to an interesting conclusion: have I, for all intents and purposes, between tragic stresses the 00’s, and my reductionism of man, become victim to the same consequences as the authors of infinity? I think this is not the right analysis. It’s rather this in both the case of infinity and propertarianism: have I managed to transcend? Have I gone mad in some poetic sense? Or is there really any difference between transcendence and madness other than the desire you feel to interact with others – such that you transcend if you do not care, and you go mad if you do?

  • THE DANGER OF PHILOSOPHY I read “Infinity” by Brian Clegg back in the early 00’s

    THE DANGER OF PHILOSOPHY

    I read “Infinity” by Brian Clegg back in the early 00’s, and was struck by his observation that many of those who study it developed psychological problems.

    Someone said to me last winter, that reading my work had turned humans into zoo animals for mere observation, and decreasing empathy with their experiences.

    And it’s true that propertarianism reduces sociology and psychology and pretty much all human action into an analysis of acquisition and defense of property, and the various signals that we display to negotiate success at both.

    I have always thought of most people as terribly dim creatures (i usually call them zombies) that I must ensure do not hurt me out of ignorance. As a child I though peers mere animals. Most adults dangerous idiots to be managed. In my teens, I thought everyone was just evil. Then in my twenties, to my horror, I understood that they were just incompetent, and I tried to become a teacher. In my forties I tried to be paternalistic, realizing that you cannot teach zombies many tricks. And in the past decade, it has become clear to me that I have lost a lot of empathy with people because I am now operating by cognitive rules that are as alien to the secularist, as superstition is the scientist, – and that my work has reduced my subconscious evaluation of most people to gene machines that I must just negotiate with. I am an alien now in this world.

    I think this has dramatically influenced my moral intuitions.

    Meanwhile, I still have human impulses for human contact and experience. I try to keep people at an emotional and intellectual distance.

    And this leads me to an interesting conclusion: have I, for all intents and purposes, between tragic stresses the 00’s, and my reductionism of man, become victim to the same consequences as the authors of infinity?

    I think this is not the right analysis. It’s rather this in both the case of infinity and propertarianism: have I managed to transcend? Have I gone mad in some poetic sense? Or is there really any difference between transcendence and madness other than the desire you feel to interact with others – such that you transcend if you do not care, and you go mad if you do?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-20 10:17:00 UTC

  • We’ve Been Focused On The Wrong Institution. We Need the Church

    (important piece) Group evolution is not a matter of specialization, of but the addition of layers of competency in increasingly abstract techniques.

    One cannot abandon the militia for the state. One cannot abandon rule of law for market expansion. One cannot abandon land holding for the commercial universalism.. The milita must exist hold the territory and limit the law. The Law must exist to hold the nation and limit commerce. The Church must exist to hold the mythos and The state- that which we call government – is a temporary organization for the purpose of producing temporal commons. And that is all. it is a purely utilitarian entity with short term objectives. We are focused on the wrong institutions. Government does not matter. Church, law, and militia do. Church, and family. Law and Nation. Militia and Land THUS ENDETH THE LESSON. WE START WITH THE CHURCHES. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • We’ve Been Focused On The Wrong Institution. We Need the Church

    (important piece) Group evolution is not a matter of specialization, of but the addition of layers of competency in increasingly abstract techniques.

    One cannot abandon the militia for the state. One cannot abandon rule of law for market expansion. One cannot abandon land holding for the commercial universalism.. The milita must exist hold the territory and limit the law. The Law must exist to hold the nation and limit commerce. The Church must exist to hold the mythos and The state- that which we call government – is a temporary organization for the purpose of producing temporal commons. And that is all. it is a purely utilitarian entity with short term objectives. We are focused on the wrong institutions. Government does not matter. Church, law, and militia do. Church, and family. Law and Nation. Militia and Land THUS ENDETH THE LESSON. WE START WITH THE CHURCHES. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Great Compromises

    All religions, by the act of repetition of metaphysical value judgments, stated as mythic, supernatural, or pseudoscientific analogies, set the terms by which the state may govern, by limiting the laws that may be imposed without the revolt of the people – who claiming a ‘higher authority’ demands that they revolt against these transgressions. This is the purpose of religion. To establish a higher authority beyond which the intentions of man may not transgress. Or more simply, to limit the powerful. Westerners since the time of the Yamnaya (Aryans) have practiced natural law: rational cooperation. This Arianism: Universal natural law, was merely the empirical tradition of a warrior elite, derived from the intolerance of warfare by voluntary warrioes – the wealthy heads of families and clans – for who oath and trust on and off the battlefield determined their ability to fight enemies in the absence of wealthy authority that commanded them. Warrior epistemology is unforgiving. It is religion and commerce that tolerate and benefit from lies. Roman law, and Church Law, evolved as reflections of Natural Law. And Natural law, like the Aryanism it evolved from, is universalist. Meaning that it sets the rational terms for cooperation between the meritocratic: strong, productive, truthful(empirical). And that rational cooperation between the powerful is impossible in the absence of natrual law. Stated perhaps more clearly: it is only under truthful testimony, and non-imposition of costs: the oath of warriors, warrantied by the punishment of death, that rational cooperation is possible. Otherwise, rational prediation is only logical. Ergo, to join the franchise (elite) one must be truthful in word and deed – lest he not come home from the next raid. Natural law, like Physics is efficient, and like Evolution, is meritocratic, and by meritocratic we mean eugenic. But even though it’s meritocratic we enforce only the principles of non-parasitism: truth, contribution to the commons, and self sustenance. Meaning that reproduction is limited to those who can produce in the current era. But that we still provide insurance for those who encounter harms is provided. Natural law is predicated on this first principle: why should we cooperate rather than kill, rob, or enslave you? The only reason for cooperation is that it is more beneficial than predation. Predation by the underclass through exploitation of consumption through over reproduction(downward redistribution), and predation by the upper classes through exploitation of productivity (upward redistribution) to increase consumption. THE CLASS COMPROMISE The compromise of cooperation under natural law is that the upper classes agree not to prey, not to exploit, and not to kill or enslave, in exchange for the lower classes not exploiting the increased productivity that the suppression of parasitism (the creation of order) by the upper classes makes possible. This is a trade. This is natural law. A voluntary exchange. And out of this exchange arises all that the west has made for this world: reason, science, technology, and medicine: the products of truth telling. The empirical people, are the result of empirical metaphysics: natural law of cooperation. We domesticate the lower classes with this trade. It is a compromise like all trades. But it is a powerfully benefical trade becaue the externalities produced by this compromise are an extraordinary rate of evolution of knowlege and production without the constant increase in parasitic consumption that comes from lower class reproduction. MARRIAGE COMPROMISE Marriage provides the same exchange between the violence and productivity of the male in favor of the long-term success of his tribe, versus the reproductivity and consumption of the female in the short term favor of her offspring. Man’s violence was domesticated and woman’s reproduction was domesticated. The method by which we domesticated man and woman equally was the marriage. This limited reproduction and consumption to the productivity of the parents. This controlled the woman’s reproduction and consumption in exchange for the man getting access to sex, thereby controlling his desire for violence and predation. Our laws and religions evolved with the same ‘scientific’ (empirical) principles that were in concert with physical laws: Trust all as kin. Accuse and Testify truthfully. Carry your own weight in order to exist and reproduce (or at least cause no harm, and contribute to the best of your ability). Your sustenance can only be provided by fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchange limited to externally of the same. And in exchange for participation in that franchise (market) all men are required to police all other men at all times without exception (ever man a sheriff). CHURCH STATE COMPROMISE The church takes responsibility for the family, and education between kin. The state for the natural conflicts that arise between members inside (justice) and those outside (war) the nation and its territory. This is a compromise. A trade. A division of labor. The nuturing female and the limiting male. You see, individualism is an effort to destroy our great compromises. The great compromises – exchanges – that made our success possible in the ancient and modern worlds.

  • The Great Compromises

    All religions, by the act of repetition of metaphysical value judgments, stated as mythic, supernatural, or pseudoscientific analogies, set the terms by which the state may govern, by limiting the laws that may be imposed without the revolt of the people – who claiming a ‘higher authority’ demands that they revolt against these transgressions. This is the purpose of religion. To establish a higher authority beyond which the intentions of man may not transgress. Or more simply, to limit the powerful. Westerners since the time of the Yamnaya (Aryans) have practiced natural law: rational cooperation. This Arianism: Universal natural law, was merely the empirical tradition of a warrior elite, derived from the intolerance of warfare by voluntary warrioes – the wealthy heads of families and clans – for who oath and trust on and off the battlefield determined their ability to fight enemies in the absence of wealthy authority that commanded them. Warrior epistemology is unforgiving. It is religion and commerce that tolerate and benefit from lies. Roman law, and Church Law, evolved as reflections of Natural Law. And Natural law, like the Aryanism it evolved from, is universalist. Meaning that it sets the rational terms for cooperation between the meritocratic: strong, productive, truthful(empirical). And that rational cooperation between the powerful is impossible in the absence of natrual law. Stated perhaps more clearly: it is only under truthful testimony, and non-imposition of costs: the oath of warriors, warrantied by the punishment of death, that rational cooperation is possible. Otherwise, rational prediation is only logical. Ergo, to join the franchise (elite) one must be truthful in word and deed – lest he not come home from the next raid. Natural law, like Physics is efficient, and like Evolution, is meritocratic, and by meritocratic we mean eugenic. But even though it’s meritocratic we enforce only the principles of non-parasitism: truth, contribution to the commons, and self sustenance. Meaning that reproduction is limited to those who can produce in the current era. But that we still provide insurance for those who encounter harms is provided. Natural law is predicated on this first principle: why should we cooperate rather than kill, rob, or enslave you? The only reason for cooperation is that it is more beneficial than predation. Predation by the underclass through exploitation of consumption through over reproduction(downward redistribution), and predation by the upper classes through exploitation of productivity (upward redistribution) to increase consumption. THE CLASS COMPROMISE The compromise of cooperation under natural law is that the upper classes agree not to prey, not to exploit, and not to kill or enslave, in exchange for the lower classes not exploiting the increased productivity that the suppression of parasitism (the creation of order) by the upper classes makes possible. This is a trade. This is natural law. A voluntary exchange. And out of this exchange arises all that the west has made for this world: reason, science, technology, and medicine: the products of truth telling. The empirical people, are the result of empirical metaphysics: natural law of cooperation. We domesticate the lower classes with this trade. It is a compromise like all trades. But it is a powerfully benefical trade becaue the externalities produced by this compromise are an extraordinary rate of evolution of knowlege and production without the constant increase in parasitic consumption that comes from lower class reproduction. MARRIAGE COMPROMISE Marriage provides the same exchange between the violence and productivity of the male in favor of the long-term success of his tribe, versus the reproductivity and consumption of the female in the short term favor of her offspring. Man’s violence was domesticated and woman’s reproduction was domesticated. The method by which we domesticated man and woman equally was the marriage. This limited reproduction and consumption to the productivity of the parents. This controlled the woman’s reproduction and consumption in exchange for the man getting access to sex, thereby controlling his desire for violence and predation. Our laws and religions evolved with the same ‘scientific’ (empirical) principles that were in concert with physical laws: Trust all as kin. Accuse and Testify truthfully. Carry your own weight in order to exist and reproduce (or at least cause no harm, and contribute to the best of your ability). Your sustenance can only be provided by fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchange limited to externally of the same. And in exchange for participation in that franchise (market) all men are required to police all other men at all times without exception (ever man a sheriff). CHURCH STATE COMPROMISE The church takes responsibility for the family, and education between kin. The state for the natural conflicts that arise between members inside (justice) and those outside (war) the nation and its territory. This is a compromise. A trade. A division of labor. The nuturing female and the limiting male. You see, individualism is an effort to destroy our great compromises. The great compromises – exchanges – that made our success possible in the ancient and modern worlds.

  • I think choosing to participate in religion is perfectly rational. Because like

    I think choosing to participate in religion is perfectly rational.

    Because like music, religion is understood precognitively.

    Choosing to listen to music that we love is rational, even if our love of it is precognitive and therefore not rational any more than out choice of vanilla over chocolate is rational.

    Choosing to participate in religion is rational, even if our enjoyment of it is precognitive.

    In the case of music, and religion, and even love, we can scientifically explain what is going on that creates the desire to make the rational choice to favor it.

    Music provides patterns of predictability, Religion provides the pack response, and love provides us with literally ‘heroin’, and a tremendous discount on trust testing.

    None of these things are mysterious any longer.

    WE LIKE TO PRETEND THAT THEY ARE.

    Because it absolves us from intellectualizing them and by doing so losing our joy of them.

    These things that give us joy also give our cognitive minds rest.

    That alone is enough of an incentive.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-19 12:03:00 UTC

  • WE’VE BEEN FOCUSED ON THE WRONG INSTITUTION (important piece) Group evolution is

    WE’VE BEEN FOCUSED ON THE WRONG INSTITUTION

    (important piece)

    Group evolution is not a matter of specialization, of but the addition of layers of competency in increasingly abstract techniques.

    One cannot abandon the militia for the state.

    One cannot abandon rule of law for market expansion.

    One cannot abandon land holding for the commercial universalism..

    The milita must exist hold the territory and limit the law.

    The Law must exist to hold the nation and limit commerce.

    The Church must exist to hold the mythos and

    The state- that which we call government – is a temporary organization for the purpose of producing temporal commons.

    And that is all. it is a purely utilitarian entity with short term objectives.

    We are focused on the wrong institutions. Government does not matter. Church, law, and militia do.

    Church, and family.

    Law and Nation.

    Militia and Land

    THUS ENDETH THE LESSON.

    WE START WITH THE CHURCHES.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-19 08:35:00 UTC

  • We started with Babbage’s gears, and arithmetic. We moved to switches and numeri

    We started with Babbage’s gears, and arithmetic.

    We moved to switches and numeric codes and formulae.

    We moved to vacuum tubes and assembly language and programs.

    We moved to transistors and short code language and operating systems, and hierarchical databases.

    We moved to chips of transistors and human readable language, and networks, and binary communication, and relational databases.

    We moved to networks of systems, human-readable documents, distributed networks and string communication.

    We move to browser-as-operating system, and virtualization, and the storage of documents as databases.

    Then to the browser-as-operating system on both client and server, using documents to transfer information. And we have begun experimenting with human language commands.

    We have slowly replaced the mechanical, with the binary, with the string, and finally the document.

    And we have taken the browser’s string-operating system,

    And we have transferred the browser’s string operating system to the server.

    We are slowly approaching where a command consists of the evolution of a ‘document’ (context), iteratively constructed from human language, then submitted as a query to a network of documents, in search of an answer stored as similar documents and indexed as relations.

    The original authors of Lisp should be proud because while more expensive, it was they who were on the right track. But like many competitors, a superior technology (lisp/betamax) could not compete with a less costly one(c/vhs).

    And when that happens a generational leap of significant value is required to correct the prior ‘error’ made by ‘rational’ market choice.

    You see, google is actually inhibiting the evolution of artificial intelligence. Honestly. Why?

    Because their monetary incentive is to provide you with inaccurate results that you must humanly parse – or they would have no opportunity to advertise, except by interrupting you.

    So google will be put out of business by document-context searches the same way that view-ad-to-access video has failed.

    What we need is to construct a document (query) with enough context to return the question that we’re asking. When that happens there will no longer be an opportunity to advertise. Why? Because someone will come along and offer access to ad-free searches for a few dollars a year, leaving google as the search engine of those without money.

    (And yes we were working on this back in 2007)

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-19 04:01:00 UTC