Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • PHILOSOPHY: UNLOADED SCIENCE VS LOADED LITERATURE (important piece on the form a

    PHILOSOPHY: UNLOADED SCIENCE VS LOADED LITERATURE

    (important piece on the form and content of philosophy)

    Testimony vs Literature

    Truth vs Experience

    Criticism vs Free Association

    Survival vs Creativity

    Deflationary vs Conflationary

    Clarify vs Obscure

    Persuasion vs Suggestion

    Decidability vs Opportunity

    Decrease Cost vs Increase Cost

    Save vs Spend

    Action vs Consumption

    Production vs Entertainment

    Science vs Art

    What is the difference between an action novel and a philosophical treatise? You are carried into the plot, vs the plot is carried into you.

    But they are both literature.

    That is all.

    A recipe is different from a work of literature.

    Science(Testimony) consists of the methods by which we create recipes and name them. Literature the methods by which we create experiences.

    Communication, like violence, is a resource put to good or ill.

    Whether we create fully informed, productive, warrantied voluntary exchanges free of externalities – meaning moral communication – or whether we create suggestion, unproductive or harmful, unwarranted, involuntary transfers full of externalities – meaning immoral communication.

    And the fact remains that it is very difficult to communicate immorally with recipes, it is very easy to communicate immorally with literature.

    Yet given that experience is our native language – one which evolved prior to reason – pedagogy is often best performed with loaded, framed, and repeated (overloaded) analogy.

    There is a place for truth.

    There is a place for pedagogy.

    There is a place for creativity

    The question we must ask of some philosophers is whether there is a place for immoral suggestion rather than moral communication.

    And whether they transfer by moral or immoral means, immoral or moral ends.

    The philosophy of the west is natural law, common law, testimony, jury, universal standing and rule of law (universal applicability). Science is the art of improving one’s testimony.

    Everything else is merely literature.

    The question is whether that literature conveys moral or immoral content, and does so morally or immorally.

    And from that perspective, philosophers have a very checkered past.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-24 01:31:00 UTC

  • People follow incentives given the information at their disposal. The problem fo

    People follow incentives given the information at their disposal.

    The problem for all people when faced with sensory instrumentation insufficient to provide them with decidability in maters of complexity at hand, they rely purely on incentives.

    In the case of politicians they follow the incentives we have given them.

    Monopoly (majoritarian) democracy is a fine means of choosing the commons to purchase given the scarcity of resources for people with homogenous interests.

    When people have heterogeneous interests, or when they are outright competitors, and especially if they have become enemies, then monopoly (majority) rule is merely a proxy for warfare, rather than a means of choosing commons.

    The solution for people with dissimilar interests (classes and genders) who are competitors (Religions and races), or who are outright enemies (urban low opportunity cost, vs rural high opportunity cost), and who NEED customized social orders in order to compete (different median IQ/impulsivity/aggression), is to create a market for commons for the exchange of commons – OR – to secede so that they can conduct these exchanges using politicians between states as ‘trade policy’. (How Europe did).

    The enlightenment visions of man were wrong. The Anglo experiment of an aristocracy of everyone has been a demonstrated failure – because meritocracy is against the interests of the majority.

    People (empirically) do not vote for policy, they vote for the ‘generals’ that reflect their reproductive strategy: gender, creed, race, clan. (sorry, that’s just how it is.)

    We are not seeing a conflict. We are seeing the results and end of a century of experimentation with the wealth effect of selling off the Louisiana purchase and the westward expansion to immigrants during a period of european civil war. That temporary luxury was assumed to result in an infinite growth – linear intergenerational expansion. We replaced a benevolent god with the theory of infinite productivity expansion.

    Meanwhile, in 1963, the left, understanding that they could not achieve conquest through persuasion, adopted the Russian method of conquering territories by exporting Russians to eastern Europe, and instead immigrated third worlders to the united states in an attempt to destabilize the high trust society and create demand for the socialist state.

    These experiments have ended along with western economic and military superiority.

    So no. This isn’t a difference of opinion any longer.

    Welcome to the start of civil war.

    But unlike other nations who lack our traditions, anglos have a long history of settling civil wars through return of rights to the middle class.

    It’s common to say that america has the oldest government in the west. But this is not really true. We simply have this thing called the english common law, a majority germanic people, and a tradition of using that law to come to compromise.

    I am no longer confident this is a solvable problem.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-22 14:17:00 UTC

  • There is only one ultimate parsimony available to man. That ultimate parsimony c

    There is only one ultimate parsimony available to man. That ultimate parsimony consists of the true names of all that exists in the universe.

    Truth is the name we use to refer to true names.

    True names are the ultimately most parsimonious descriptions of whatever phenomenon we wish to convey.

    Now, others might say that there are more experiential ways of observing existence. And I might agree that there are many stories we can envision. And that from these visions we might gather new ideas. But those ideas can be used for entertainment, for assuaging suffering, or for deceit. But they cannot convey true names.

    This is not to say that there is no place for the arts in the communication of the human experience. It is however, to say that the communication of the human experience can be tested for aesthetic, true, false, good and bad content.

    Art can be judged as is any other statement.

    Art does not get license to hazard, lie cheat, steal and harm.

    Just the Opposite.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-22 10:59:00 UTC

  • Truth: Seeking True Names – The Ultimate Parsimony

    [T]here is only one ultimate parsimony available to man. That ultimate parsimony consists of the true names of all that exists in the universe.
    Truth is the name we use to refer to true names.
    True names are the ultimately most parsimonious descriptions of whatever phenomenon we wish to convey.
     
    Now, others might say that there are more experiential ways of observing existence. And I might agree that there are many stories we can envision. And that from these visions we might gather new ideas. But those ideas can be used for entertainment, for assuaging suffering, or for deceit. But they cannot convey true names.
     
    This is not to say that there is no place for the arts in the communication of the human experience. It is however, to say that the communication of the human experience can be tested for aesthetic, true, false, good and bad content.
     
    Art can be judged as is any other statement.
     
    Art does not get license to hazard, lie cheat, steal and harm.
     
    Just the Opposite.

  • Truth: Seeking True Names – The Ultimate Parsimony

    [T]here is only one ultimate parsimony available to man. That ultimate parsimony consists of the true names of all that exists in the universe.
    Truth is the name we use to refer to true names.
    True names are the ultimately most parsimonious descriptions of whatever phenomenon we wish to convey.
     
    Now, others might say that there are more experiential ways of observing existence. And I might agree that there are many stories we can envision. And that from these visions we might gather new ideas. But those ideas can be used for entertainment, for assuaging suffering, or for deceit. But they cannot convey true names.
     
    This is not to say that there is no place for the arts in the communication of the human experience. It is however, to say that the communication of the human experience can be tested for aesthetic, true, false, good and bad content.
     
    Art can be judged as is any other statement.
     
    Art does not get license to hazard, lie cheat, steal and harm.
     
    Just the Opposite.

  • The Great Lies of Both Eras

    (Having an angry moment over “the big lies”.) [B]efore the hebrew bible there were myths. But the invention of that history was the invention of lying. Its the invention of the big lie.

    The battle between the cities in the ancient world is this: Lying: Jerusalem Storytelling: Egypt (Memphis/Thebes?) Reason: Greece/Athens Truth: Rome.) Pragmatism: Sparta. Let that sink in a bit. Lying: The Ashkenazi Enlightenment Storytelling: The French Enlightenment Reason: The German Enlightenment Truth: The anglo enlightenment Pragmatism: America Let that sink in some more.

  • The Great Lies of Both Eras

    (Having an angry moment over “the big lies”.) [B]efore the hebrew bible there were myths. But the invention of that history was the invention of lying. Its the invention of the big lie.

    The battle between the cities in the ancient world is this: Lying: Jerusalem Storytelling: Egypt (Memphis/Thebes?) Reason: Greece/Athens Truth: Rome.) Pragmatism: Sparta. Let that sink in a bit. Lying: The Ashkenazi Enlightenment Storytelling: The French Enlightenment Reason: The German Enlightenment Truth: The anglo enlightenment Pragmatism: America Let that sink in some more.

  • Politicians Follow the Incentives We Give Them Using Information They Possess

    [P]eople follow incentives given the information at their disposal.
     
    The problem for all people when faced with sensory instrumentation insufficient to provide them with decidability in maters of complexity at hand, they rely purely on incentives.
     
    In the case of politicians they follow the incentives we have given them.
     
    Monopoly (majoritarian) democracy is a fine means of choosing the commons to purchase given the scarcity of resources for people with homogenous interests.
     
    When people have heterogeneous interests, or when they are outright competitors, and especially if they have become enemies, then monopoly (majority) rule is merely a proxy for warfare, rather than a means of choosing commons.
     
    The solution for people with dissimilar interests (classes and genders) who are competitors (Religions and races), or who are outright enemies (urban low opportunity cost, vs rural high opportunity cost), and who NEED customized social orders in order to compete (different median IQ/impulsivity/aggression), is to create a market for commons for the exchange of commons – OR – to secede so that they can conduct these exchanges using politicians between states as ‘trade policy’. (How Europe did).
     
    The enlightenment visions of man were wrong. The Anglo experiment of an aristocracy of everyone has been a demonstrated failure – because meritocracy is against the interests of the majority.
     
    People (empirically) do not vote for policy, they vote for the ‘generals’ that reflect their reproductive strategy: gender, creed, race, clan. (sorry, that’s just how it is.)
     
    We are not seeing a conflict. We are seeing the results and end of a century of experimentation with the wealth effect of selling off the Louisiana purchase and the westward expansion to immigrants during a period of european civil war. That temporary luxury was assumed to result in an infinite growth – linear intergenerational expansion. We replaced a benevolent god with the theory of infinite productivity expansion.
     
    Meanwhile, in 1963, the left, understanding that they could not achieve conquest through persuasion, adopted the Russian method of conquering territories by exporting Russians to eastern Europe, and instead immigrated third worlders to the united states in an attempt to destabilize the high trust society and create demand for the socialist state.
     
    These experiments have ended along with western economic and military superiority.
     
    So no. This isn’t a difference of opinion any longer.
     
    Welcome to the start of civil war.
     
    But unlike other nations who lack our traditions, anglos have a long history of settling civil wars through return of rights to the middle class.
     
    It’s common to say that america has the oldest government in the west. But this is not really true. We simply have this thing called the english common law, a majority germanic people, and a tradition of using that law to come to compromise.
     
    I am no longer confident this is a solvable problem.

  • Politicians Follow the Incentives We Give Them Using Information They Possess

    [P]eople follow incentives given the information at their disposal.
     
    The problem for all people when faced with sensory instrumentation insufficient to provide them with decidability in maters of complexity at hand, they rely purely on incentives.
     
    In the case of politicians they follow the incentives we have given them.
     
    Monopoly (majoritarian) democracy is a fine means of choosing the commons to purchase given the scarcity of resources for people with homogenous interests.
     
    When people have heterogeneous interests, or when they are outright competitors, and especially if they have become enemies, then monopoly (majority) rule is merely a proxy for warfare, rather than a means of choosing commons.
     
    The solution for people with dissimilar interests (classes and genders) who are competitors (Religions and races), or who are outright enemies (urban low opportunity cost, vs rural high opportunity cost), and who NEED customized social orders in order to compete (different median IQ/impulsivity/aggression), is to create a market for commons for the exchange of commons – OR – to secede so that they can conduct these exchanges using politicians between states as ‘trade policy’. (How Europe did).
     
    The enlightenment visions of man were wrong. The Anglo experiment of an aristocracy of everyone has been a demonstrated failure – because meritocracy is against the interests of the majority.
     
    People (empirically) do not vote for policy, they vote for the ‘generals’ that reflect their reproductive strategy: gender, creed, race, clan. (sorry, that’s just how it is.)
     
    We are not seeing a conflict. We are seeing the results and end of a century of experimentation with the wealth effect of selling off the Louisiana purchase and the westward expansion to immigrants during a period of european civil war. That temporary luxury was assumed to result in an infinite growth – linear intergenerational expansion. We replaced a benevolent god with the theory of infinite productivity expansion.
     
    Meanwhile, in 1963, the left, understanding that they could not achieve conquest through persuasion, adopted the Russian method of conquering territories by exporting Russians to eastern Europe, and instead immigrated third worlders to the united states in an attempt to destabilize the high trust society and create demand for the socialist state.
     
    These experiments have ended along with western economic and military superiority.
     
    So no. This isn’t a difference of opinion any longer.
     
    Welcome to the start of civil war.
     
    But unlike other nations who lack our traditions, anglos have a long history of settling civil wars through return of rights to the middle class.
     
    It’s common to say that america has the oldest government in the west. But this is not really true. We simply have this thing called the english common law, a majority germanic people, and a tradition of using that law to come to compromise.
     
    I am no longer confident this is a solvable problem.

  • MORE ON LEADERSHIP OF A MOVEMENT You want to feed a movement not lead it. Leader

    MORE ON LEADERSHIP OF A MOVEMENT

    You want to feed a movement not lead it.

    Leaders like monarchs can be killed and symbolically kill the movement.

    Movements, like bureaucracies and religions can survive many losses and still continue onward.

    We do not lead. We feed. If we lead we die. We feed we survive.

    The sergeants run an army. Everyone else feeds them resources.

    The leaders of five or more men run a revolution. Everyone else feeds them information.

    A movement needs communications channels for collecting and distributing information.

    One does not direct a movement. One feeds opportunities to sergeants who control fire teams, who set the world on fire.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-21 09:06:00 UTC