Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE RELIGION OF WESTERN MAN FREE OF THE EASTERN LIES Where we speak of god as an

    THE RELIGION OF WESTERN MAN FREE OF THE EASTERN LIES

    Where we speak of god as an anthropomorphic representation of natural law, and physical law, he is a pedagogical device. Where we speak of gods as anthropomorphic representations of the virtues we aspire to, they are pedagogical devices. Both provide us with analogies to experience that we require for learning, while informing our moral intuitions how other humans will judge our actions. It is the most effective form of learning morality by imitation.

    Our myths of princes and princesses teach us how we may act if we wish to be treated as princes and princesses. Natural law and physical law remain the only truths, and these narratives pedagogical devices for the purpose of education, communication, and representation in our arts. They form the binding myth in human terms, that let us perceive membership in a tribe so large that we cannot empathize with it, and learn from it, without the use of these myths. Hyperbole, Exaggeration, and Heroism, illustrate and inform us.

    The timelessness of these heroes teach us the importance of continuity – of what we consider the eternal consequences of our actions. Of what we westerners possess in our metaphysical value judgement: that man can become gods if we transform the universe to our will. So the purpose of each of us, if we wish to be godlike, is leave life having transformed the world for the better: to one by one, life by life, construct an eden for man from a hostile universe that is as uncaring of us as the dirt under our feet, until there is nothing left to change, and we have in practice become the gods we seek.

    This is the philosophy of western man. Of we who would not suffer gods, but struggle to become them ourselves. Man by man, woman by woman, generation by generation.

    And we may drag the rest of mankind with us into godhood, or leave them as the mere animals that they are if they pose no hindrance. Or exterminate them if they are a hindrance, so that man can become as eternal as the universe – and the master of it.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-08 05:36:00 UTC

  • i will say it again. of course I love my family and tribe above all. but I also

    i will say it again. of course I love my family and tribe above all. but I also wish every other family and tribe to prosper, evolve, and transcend. As far as I can tell, our differences are just differences in skills when we practice truthfulness in all walks of life.

    And yes, I understand that some groups practice untruthfulness and parasitism as strategies. But that is not a genetic necessity it is a cultural utility. And yes, I understand that some peoples cannot compete without parasitism and untruthfulness. I do not see why to harm them, but I see no value in expanding them.

    Any man who fights for truth and liberty is my brother. Any man who uses truth and liberty to advance his family and tribe is a nobleman whom I will reciprocally insure.

    this is how our families and tribes rase each other into transcendence.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-04 07:36:00 UTC

  • (riffing off eli’s ‘confession’) I set out to provide western man a rational and

    (riffing off eli’s ‘confession’)

    I set out to provide western man a rational and scientific language for arguing in support of his ancient civilization’s traditions. In doing so I discovered that it’s truth in the scientific sense, and sovereignty in the legal sense, and individualism in the political sense, that are the source of western uniqueness: our martial heritage as a voluntary warrior militia, not one of obedient soldiers.

    So my work asks us to return to truth telling in every aspect of our daily lives. And to require truth telling in the commons by treating information as a commons that we must protect from pollution just as we do land, sea, air, and the animal and plant life under our care.

    But if the people who are inspired by a demand for truth are racist, sexist, bigoted, straight, white, men, then that in itself tells us something profound, both about those men and about those who do not seek the truth, and who criticize those men.

    I see my work as for the betterment of all mankind. As a necessary evolution from the superstitious to the mystical to the reasonable to the rational to the scientific – to the truthful. As our means of transcendence.

    And so I am a scientist because I am a truth-ist. I am a nationalist because I am a truth-ist. I am a class-ist, because I am a truth-ist. I am a masculinist because I am a truth-ist. I am a nomocracy-ist because I am a truth-ist. I am a market-government-advocate because I am a truth-is. I advocate these things because they are objectively good for man. I do not just criticize the alternatives because reason and evidence tell me that they are bad for man. I see no value in criticizing others for advancing their interests. I see only value in advancing the good because the alternatives are good for some group or other, but not good for mankind as a whole.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-04 06:20:00 UTC

  • We either all fight for liberty or we cannot possess it. I know many men would p

    We either all fight for liberty or we cannot possess it. I know many men would prefer to talk rather than fight. I know some of us would prefer to fight rather than talk. But liberty only can survive when we insure one another. There is no other insurer of it. And belief or desire is not action it is the avoidance of action.

    A man. A plan. A purpose.

    Truth.

    Kill them all.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-28 08:18:00 UTC

  • THE CHURCH AND STATE LIE. THE MILITIA AND JURY DO NOT. ***I suspect that very fe

    THE CHURCH AND STATE LIE. THE MILITIA AND JURY DO NOT.

    ***I suspect that very few people will understand either the central point: that credit money has been used to destroy us in order to justify democratic government.

    And even fewer will grasp the second point: the importance of our western discourse’s specialized languages for religious myth, moral poetry, amoral law, and scientific(truthful) politics and technology.

    Or the third point: that the western ethic has been unique in its predication upon the assumption of truthful speech, and that the success of the west in contrast to the rest was achieved when our truthfulness was not imposed upon by church in the medieval period, or state in the modern.

    Church and state lied. Science did not. And commerce cannot easily do so without defense by the state.***

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-28 08:11:00 UTC

  • WHY DO AMERICANS SPEAK ONE LANGUAGE? CONQUEST 1) Our various States used to be a

    WHY DO AMERICANS SPEAK ONE LANGUAGE? CONQUEST

    1) Our various States used to be as different as european countries.

    2) The Civil War achieved in America what Napoleon and Hitler failed to achieve in Europe: monocultural conquest.

    3) The primary reason given for the civil war is usually over slavery, but this is propagandism. The civil war was a fight between the northern industrial civilization and the souther agrarian civilization, over the proceeds of the Louisiana purchase: the western territories. Had the secession succeeded, the new western agrarian territories would have aligned with the Southern states and preserved slavery. But moreover, they would have given political and economic control of the continent to the southern agrarians, and allowed the south to politically control the north. The souther solution was to sever ties and this would have been the least violent solution. The north could not tolerate this for *class* reasons (the northerners were from the middle english classes, and sountherners more likely from the lower scotts-irish.

    4) American political conflict is just as much between the “Nine Nations” of north america, as it is between urban and rural, and minority races and whites.

    5) My suspicion is that we will have a break-up of the united states in the next half century which will coincide with the recognition of the failure of the european union project.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-27 06:22:00 UTC

  • EVOLUTION: IGNORANCE, AWARENESS, WISDOM When you have no experience with the wor

    EVOLUTION: IGNORANCE, AWARENESS, WISDOM

    When you have no experience with the world you can speak only from feelings. When you have some experience with the world you can mix feelings with visualizations. When you have experience in the world you can speak using descriptions of existence.

    When you have little skill you can speak in experiences. When you have more skill you can speak in analogies. When you have more skill you can speak in names of operations.

    When you know little of truth you can speak honestly when you desire. When you know more of the truth you can speak justificationally when you desire. When you know how the truth is created, you can speak critically when you desire.

    When you have no experience with the world you can rely on virtue ethics (imitation). When you have some experience with the world you can rely upon rule ethics. When you have much experience with the world you can rely upon outcome ethics.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-25 01:29:00 UTC

  • SPEAKING TRUTHFULLY IN MORAL LANGUAGE? (advanced topic) (from elsewhere) Numbers

    SPEAKING TRUTHFULLY IN MORAL LANGUAGE?

    (advanced topic) (from elsewhere)

    Numbers (positional names) exist quite differently from hammers. While it certainly is possible that some higher mathematics exists than a simple truth table – it is hard to conceive of such a thing. We have no discretion over numbers, whereas we have a lot of discretion over hammers.

    …sensation, synthesis, association, representation, description, hypotheses, theories, laws, logic, names, numbers, recipes, actions, constructions….

    The beauty of numbers is that if we construct a series of axiomatic statements, then all numerical consequence lies deterministically in those statements – yet these consequences are beyond our perceptions.

    The “calculator” (device), does in fact compute: perform a series of user-configurable operations according to fixed rules.

    If we mean – via Searle – that the device lacks sentience (awareness), with which experience the meaning of the performance of the operations. We must then express meaning which requires perception, memory, association, evaluation, choice. :the mixing of perception with memory, intuition, and instinct.

    But a human arranged information in the device, and the device does in fact perform operations that constitute the computation.

    And the test of this argument is that man cannot perform these operations without the aid of the device. (See Mandelbrot).

    …The information in the man’s mind.

    The actions performed by man.

    The information embodied in the construction of the device by man.

    The information entered into the device for the purpose of computation.

    The transformation of information by the device.

    The perception of the output information by the man.

    Association of the output information with the memory of man….

    The man created the tool of transformation but he did not transform it. In fact, that is why we use most such tools: we are incapable of such transformations in real time without them.

    Does an idiot savant know he is performing computations? Or is he merely reciting a series of steps that others have trained him to perform?

    Most of us lear by repetition and gain undrestanding of what it is we do only after we have learned it through repetition.

    Des that mean we do not calculate until we know the meaning of calculating?

    I tend to see these statements as a language problem originating in the attempts to use common language to make scientific statements, and nothing more. Our language evolved for justification (permission) and anthropomorphization (basic association).

    So we use analogies, nor names of analogies, or names of experiences, but not existential names: descriptions of a series of operations. This CONFLATION of common language terminology with which we convey meaning, with the attempt to produce trutfhu statemetns, results in failure. And most philosophical discourse is nothing more than the parlor game of trying to fit a term of common language into a technical one, like two puzzle pieces that clearly were not cut from the same board.

    But if we follow the information just as in economics we follow the money, we can operationally (scientifically) describe any process that transforms information.

    The colloquial tongue with which we discourse is no more suitable to speaking truthfully (operationally) than formal logic is for dinner chat.

    Why? the economics of transfer is utilitarian, and we manage exceptions, not perfect at all times. That would be an unnecessary burden.

    I remember ancient mechanical adding machines that my parents had in the shop in the 60’s and 70’s. The energy of my arm pulling the lever transformed some arrangement of numbers into other numbers – I knew not how. Today the energy stored in batteries, delivered by dc or ac current does the same.

    To say the I performed a calculation and the machine assisted me by performing computations is about as accurate in our language as we can get. Why? because the purpose of the statement is to distinguish my efforts and responsibilities from those which were not my efforts and responsibilities. Since that is the content of moral (cooperative) language: cause and accountability.

    We evolved speech to cooperate. We cooperate because it is more productive than any other individual action we can take by orders of magnitude. We evolved moral intuitions, moral language, and not unsurprisingly, justificationary argument because of the value of cooperation. And so our common language is framed for the purpose of conveying moral information. Why else would we even care about speaking the truth?

    Man is a moral creature – he must be. So he gives precedent to moral framing. And truthfully, man is largely unsuitable for nearly any other form of discourse.

    If you want to speak amorally it is possible, but one must merely describe the movement of information to do so – without conflating the language of morality with the language of truth (testimony).

    I am not sure others have addressed this issue or not. I have not found it in the literature. Although I tend to read science…

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-24 02:24:00 UTC

  • ALL THERE IS TO SAY OF LIBERTY. THERE IS NOTHING MORE. (from elsewhere) I think

    ALL THERE IS TO SAY OF LIBERTY. THERE IS NOTHING MORE.

    (from elsewhere)

    I think that public intellectuals should engage in criticism and advocacy, and where possible explanation. But reason and rationalism are two different standards. And that any statements of proof (strict construction) whether for justificationary or critical purposes, should be left to professionals in that discipline.

    More than anything, in hindsight, the libertarian movement is, perhaps as much or moreso than marxism, little more than a history of amateurish, badly made philosophy, attempting to justify a minority disposition as a possible majority preference, in the hope of applying christian moral rhetoric, to obtain the sovereignty of the martial aristocracy

    The philosophy of liberty consists in sovereignty and property, the common law, universal standing, and universal application (rule of law), held before a jury of one’s peers. Nomocracy – the law – is the only source of liberty. And the universal militia the only possible source of nomocracy. Even Hayek, slow as he was, finally understood. (Spoken as a slow worker myself.)

    We still carry our desire to hear great tales around the campfire before sleep – to carry through our dreams means of integrating our day’s experiences. We still carry the desire to speak in great tales and inspirational language.

    But liberty is valuable in that we obtain the maximum ability to pursue our ends as long as we provide no disincentive for others to permit us to do so. And through this liberty we produce trial and error in greater volume than the alternatives. We calculate our evolution at a greater pace than any alternative.

    And because we calculate faster, with more of us, we compete against other groups who are less able, more successfully.

    We construct liberty not by advocacy, but like the law, by preventing all other alternatives by the aggressive use of organized violence.

    That is all there is to say. That is all there is to liberty. Nothing more. The rest is gilding for the weak, timid, the cowardly, and the ignorant.

    Rule or be ruled.

    That is all there is to say on the topic of liberty.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-23 02:31:00 UTC

  • You know when african friends talk about white colonialism I just acknowledge th

    You know when african friends talk about white colonialism I just acknowledge that my ancestors – at least politically – thought that they were doing the right thing. And that it created malincentives. And that it turned into the very wrong thing. I can’t really apologize for it.

    When my ancestors conquered north america, I don’t really face any conflict because primitive-is-primitive, and if you can’t evolve them into peers, then you can’t cooperate with them. But I don’t take pride in their conquest.

    When my ancestors invaded England and ‘normanized’ the anglo saxons, I realize that this was a very bad thing for my kin, europa, and mankind.

    When my ancestors advocated puritanism, stood against the Crown, and against the south, I acknowledge that they were wrong.

    When thy created democracy they were wrong. And democracy has been a tragic failure.

    When my kin evolved that puritanism into feminism and humanism, they were wrong. And caused a lot of harm.

    The reason I don’t feel bad is that my ancestors brought reason, law, science, and all sorts of technology with them. Converted reason into science, and dragged man out of ignorance and poverty.

    And I am fully aware that the reason for their skill at this technology was dependent upon their skill at war, which gave them competitive advantage in commerce.

    YET, when I criticize other groups, and they defend themselves, and they make excuses. Rather than saying ‘yeah’, we really fucked up the world, and owning it.

    They’re just engaging in lying. They won’t engage in reformation.

    So, as the people who reform, we must reform not only ourselves, but reform others.

    Else we cannot raise them to peerage and cooperate on equal terms.

    Propertariansim, Testimonialism, Nomocracy, Market Commons.

    (ya didn’t see that commin’ did ya?)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-18 05:15:00 UTC