Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THEY MUST SUE OBAMA OR THE PRESIDENCY HAS BECOME DESPOTIC (Reposted from comment

    THEY MUST SUE OBAMA OR THE PRESIDENCY HAS BECOME DESPOTIC

    (Reposted from comment on National review:)

    They either must sue or impeach or they risk the de facto destruction of the balance of powers.

    I prefer that he be struck by lightening from the hand of god (or a lucky lunatic foreign or domestic), but otherwise impeachment is political, impossible and leaves us with an imbecile in the presidency, while the courts construct prescedent and effectively reconstruct the laws that he has broken. I would much prefer a body of law to constrain the administration than I would the political process.

    Once he is guilty he is defacto guilty of high crimes, so impeachment is either easier or unnecessary. In either case his presidency is done.

    We will eventually have to separate state (ritual and veto) from government (administration). The presidency is, empirically a failed institution, both domestically and internationally. A monarchy with veto power and a parliamentary system have proven superior. But since we have no monarchy, a president unbound by term limits whose only power was the podium and veto would better fulfill the demands of the balance of powers.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-12 08:41:00 UTC

  • Aristocracy and Higher Tribalism (Instead of Democracy and Infighting.)

    [A]ristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our tribes, no matter what tribe we belong to. All aristocracy speaks the same language, and all of us can work to better our own tribes with the help of aristocrats from other tribes. We have no false allegiances. We have no political agendas. Our agenda is merely the advancement of the economic status of our tribes. Aristocracy under ‘higher tribalism’ is a very ‘human’ form of government. No ideologies are needed. No justification for and search for power over others is needed. All wee need is do to negotiate on behalf of our tribes large or small. Under democracy our differences are a source of conflict. Under aristocracy our differences are a source of opportunity for mutual benefit. If we are trapped in an agrarian society all that we can really do is improve the land, and fight over the land if we want greater wealth. But under industrial capitalism, we are not constrained by the productivity of our land, but by the productivity of our people. And the productivity of our people is determined by the productivity of our institutions in assisting the people in cooperating, by making possible the voluntary organization of production. I would much rather live in a world filled with many enterprising aristocrats feeding off the status given them by their tribes and families, than I would in a world of bureaucrats living off the status obtained by creating conflict using ideology. And I am pretty sure that no moral man can justify any other arrangement for any reason other than the selfish accumulation of power, and the power to oppress others to conform to his will. All aristocracy requires is the grant of property rights and the reciprocal guarantee of those rights – and a militia consisting of all able bodied men equally willing to guarantee those rights.

  • Aristocracy and Higher Tribalism (Instead of Democracy and Infighting.)

    [A]ristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our tribes, no matter what tribe we belong to. All aristocracy speaks the same language, and all of us can work to better our own tribes with the help of aristocrats from other tribes. We have no false allegiances. We have no political agendas. Our agenda is merely the advancement of the economic status of our tribes. Aristocracy under ‘higher tribalism’ is a very ‘human’ form of government. No ideologies are needed. No justification for and search for power over others is needed. All wee need is do to negotiate on behalf of our tribes large or small. Under democracy our differences are a source of conflict. Under aristocracy our differences are a source of opportunity for mutual benefit. If we are trapped in an agrarian society all that we can really do is improve the land, and fight over the land if we want greater wealth. But under industrial capitalism, we are not constrained by the productivity of our land, but by the productivity of our people. And the productivity of our people is determined by the productivity of our institutions in assisting the people in cooperating, by making possible the voluntary organization of production. I would much rather live in a world filled with many enterprising aristocrats feeding off the status given them by their tribes and families, than I would in a world of bureaucrats living off the status obtained by creating conflict using ideology. And I am pretty sure that no moral man can justify any other arrangement for any reason other than the selfish accumulation of power, and the power to oppress others to conform to his will. All aristocracy requires is the grant of property rights and the reciprocal guarantee of those rights – and a militia consisting of all able bodied men equally willing to guarantee those rights.

  • Cultural Variants of Truth and the Consequences

    Truth and Adherence to Rules are two different things. (submission) Truth and Fidelity to Contract are two different things. Truth and Duty are two different things. Truth and Knowledge are two different things. Truth as Adherence – Familialism (most of the world) Truth as Fidelity – Tribalism (judaism) Truth as Duty – Nationalism (germans) Truth as Science – Universalism. (english) [T]hat members of a community follow rules and conventions with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another. That members of a community fulfill promises or contracts with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another. Another community may both fulfill it’s promises, its contracts, and the commitment to tell the truth at all times regardless of cost. The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***. If you grasp the profundity of this statement you will understand why some cultures produce science, and some produce trade, and some produce tyranny. Some create science. And some create pseudoscience. And some create only order. Some create science, innovation, trade and trust. Others create only trade, and others create only utilitarian applications of tools. Small things in large numbers have vast consequences. When we use ‘functions” such as the verb to be, or the word ‘truth’ we do not really understand their construction, just that they are shorthand approximations that tend to work. We have just knowledge of use, not knowledge of construction. But the word ‘true’ means very different things in different places: science, fidelity, and adherence. And the consequences are astounding. Truth is a performative declaration. Truth claims then, to different groups, state either epistemology, fidelity, or adherence. I have solved the problem you know. It’s ethics. —- [C]omments From: Ayelam Valentine Agaliba:

    The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***

    This is a most penetrating line. It has vast political implications. Do you know what? I believe that you can better Samuel Huntington. Replace his Hegelianism with your program and what you have is a far more rigorous/descriptive explanation. From: Curt Doolittle

    (^^^Thank you for all the help you have been to me. Love you man.)

    From: Frank Lovell I’d add or say:

    Where there are NO humans, truth rules; where there ARE humans, ethics rules, without which truth and knowledge of truth matter not.

  • Cultural Variants of Truth and the Consequences

    Truth and Adherence to Rules are two different things. (submission) Truth and Fidelity to Contract are two different things. Truth and Duty are two different things. Truth and Knowledge are two different things. Truth as Adherence – Familialism (most of the world) Truth as Fidelity – Tribalism (judaism) Truth as Duty – Nationalism (germans) Truth as Science – Universalism. (english) [T]hat members of a community follow rules and conventions with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another. That members of a community fulfill promises or contracts with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another. Another community may both fulfill it’s promises, its contracts, and the commitment to tell the truth at all times regardless of cost. The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***. If you grasp the profundity of this statement you will understand why some cultures produce science, and some produce trade, and some produce tyranny. Some create science. And some create pseudoscience. And some create only order. Some create science, innovation, trade and trust. Others create only trade, and others create only utilitarian applications of tools. Small things in large numbers have vast consequences. When we use ‘functions” such as the verb to be, or the word ‘truth’ we do not really understand their construction, just that they are shorthand approximations that tend to work. We have just knowledge of use, not knowledge of construction. But the word ‘true’ means very different things in different places: science, fidelity, and adherence. And the consequences are astounding. Truth is a performative declaration. Truth claims then, to different groups, state either epistemology, fidelity, or adherence. I have solved the problem you know. It’s ethics. —- [C]omments From: Ayelam Valentine Agaliba:

    The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***

    This is a most penetrating line. It has vast political implications. Do you know what? I believe that you can better Samuel Huntington. Replace his Hegelianism with your program and what you have is a far more rigorous/descriptive explanation. From: Curt Doolittle

    (^^^Thank you for all the help you have been to me. Love you man.)

    From: Frank Lovell I’d add or say:

    Where there are NO humans, truth rules; where there ARE humans, ethics rules, without which truth and knowledge of truth matter not.

  • 20th Century Philosophers Were Seeking Power, Not Truth

    [O]perationalism constructs rigid correspondence, eliminates the problem of imprecise language, even non-existent language, by creating names for operations rather than allegories, normative usage, or worst of all, relying upon names of experiences rather than the actions that cause them. It has become increasingly frustrating, if not dismissive, to read the philosophical arguments of the 20th century, which seek to find truth in language through a variant of set operations – which of course, must be nothing more than circular. When the answer was just sitting there for everyone to pick up and run with. But It was apparently much better to seek truth as a means of persuasion of others, rather than to seek truth as a means of testing the content of one’s testimony. And I think the psychologists and intellectual historians could spend a lot of time analyzing that particular bit of 20th century mysticism. Or perhaps pseudoscience. Or more graciously ‘error’. What vanity, or error would lead a body of people to seek authority rather than duty? I hope the depth of that question comes across. We all seek power. But the truth is just as likely to impede our ambitions as assist in them. But the academy, sought to take power from the church. Moral power. Reason and Science were the first blow. Darwin was the second. The Universalist State the third. It was all in pursuit of power. Philosophers of the 20th century, knowingly or not, were seeking power, not truth.

  • 20th Century Philosophers Were Seeking Power, Not Truth

    [O]perationalism constructs rigid correspondence, eliminates the problem of imprecise language, even non-existent language, by creating names for operations rather than allegories, normative usage, or worst of all, relying upon names of experiences rather than the actions that cause them. It has become increasingly frustrating, if not dismissive, to read the philosophical arguments of the 20th century, which seek to find truth in language through a variant of set operations – which of course, must be nothing more than circular. When the answer was just sitting there for everyone to pick up and run with. But It was apparently much better to seek truth as a means of persuasion of others, rather than to seek truth as a means of testing the content of one’s testimony. And I think the psychologists and intellectual historians could spend a lot of time analyzing that particular bit of 20th century mysticism. Or perhaps pseudoscience. Or more graciously ‘error’. What vanity, or error would lead a body of people to seek authority rather than duty? I hope the depth of that question comes across. We all seek power. But the truth is just as likely to impede our ambitions as assist in them. But the academy, sought to take power from the church. Moral power. Reason and Science were the first blow. Darwin was the second. The Universalist State the third. It was all in pursuit of power. Philosophers of the 20th century, knowingly or not, were seeking power, not truth.

  • OPERATIONALISM AS COMPLETING THE TRANSFORMATION OF MAN? I want to talk about the

    OPERATIONALISM AS COMPLETING THE TRANSFORMATION OF MAN?

    I want to talk about the experience of the mind, under economics, science and operationalism, versus under language, logic and math under platonism. But I don’t know the words to use. There is a very great similarity between language, logic, math, mysticism and religion, that is not extant in economics, science, and operationalism. Now, I sort of ‘get’ it. But I can’t quite figure out how to talk about it. One of the problems is that under internally consistent mythos (declarative inventions) we call axiomatic systems, and objective reality (externally correspondent descriptions (descriptive statements) we call theoretical systems, is that there is some strange appearance of the infinite in axiomatic (mythical) systems that does not exist in theoretical (descriptive) systems. And I can’t quite put my finger on it. But I think Operationalism cures it. Maybe that is one of the metaphysical consequences of studying science and economics? Does it cure our native imaginary mysticism? Usually by writing something like this I can touch what is on the tip of my tongue. And I’m failing. But I know it’s something like this: when we describe an axiomatic system, it is unbounded by reality’s limits. I even know why it is so – the limit of the number of concepts we can run at one time. I know that we are often ‘awed’ by what should not awe us but be obvious: that whenever we stipulate models or axioms we construct all possible consequences in that utterance, even though we cannot ‘imagine’ all such possible consequences. Our imagination takes license to create ‘the imaginary reality’ out of what was merely a computationally larger set of consequences than our feeble minds can process. What bit of cognitive bias and psychology makes us attracted to the imaginary? Is it another garden of eden? An intellectual space where we are unbounded by reality for just a moment? I think so. I think it evokes the feeling of the undiscovered valley full of new resources and prey. It’s a cognitive bias. An evolutionary instinct. And another instinct or cognitive bias that is no longer useful in our current state. Does science train us out of it? I think so. We still have people, and I think we try to create people, who obtain their awe from scientific, or in the case of TED viewers, pseudoscientific, rather than imaginary exploration? But without operationalism the ‘conversion’ of scientific man is incomplete. Maybe that is what the 20th century represented? The last throws of mysticism? Our attempt to hold onto the imaginary garden of eden where we are unburdened by reality? Is that fascination in the 20th century a reaction to the vast increases in scale that affected all of our lives? Is it a distraction from alienation, disempowerment, the loss of our traditions, and the desperate need to feel we could regain previous sense of control and certainty. Is our job to complete the transformation? To abandon our last mysteries? So that we can RESTORE OUR CIVIL SOCIETY and once again eliminate our alienation? The central problem of modernity?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 05:33:00 UTC

  • CULTURAL VARIANTS OF TRUTH AND THE CONSEQUENCES Truth and Adherence to Rules are

    CULTURAL VARIANTS OF TRUTH AND THE CONSEQUENCES

    Truth and Adherence to Rules are two different things. (submission)

    Truth and Fidelity to Contract are two different things.

    Truth and Commitment to Duty are two different things.

    Truth and Knowledge are two different things.

    Truth as Adherence – Familialism (most of the world)

    Truth as Fidelity – Tribalism (judaism)

    Truth as Duty – Nationalism (germans)

    Truth as Science – Universalism. (english)

    That members of a community follow rules and conventions with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.

    That members of a community fulfill promises or contracts with one another, does not require whatsoever that they tell the truth to one another.

    Another community may both fulfill it’s promises, its contracts, and the commitment to tell the truth at all times regardless of cost.

    The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***.

    If you grasp the profundity of this statement you will understand why some cultures produce science, and some produce trade, and some produce tyranny. Some create science. And some create pseudoscience. And some create only order. Some create science, innovation, trade and trust. Others create only trade, and others create only utilitarian applications of tools.

    Small things in large numbers have vast consequences.

    When we use ‘functions” such as the verb to be, or the word ‘truth’ we do not really understand their construction, just that they are shorthand approximations that tend to work. We have just knowledge of use, not knowledge of construction.

    But the word ‘true’ means very different things in different places: science, fidelity, and adherence.

    And the consequences are astounding.

    Truth is a performative declaration. Truth claims then, to different groups, state either epistemology, fidelity, or adherence.

    I have solved the problem you know.

    It’s ethics.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 17:38:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY AND HIGHER TRIBALISM Aristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our trib

    ARISTOCRACY AND HIGHER TRIBALISM

    Aristocracy can cooperate on behalf of our tribes, no matter what tribe we belong to. All aristocracy speaks the same language, and all of us can work to better our own tribes with the help of aristocrats from other tribes. We have no false allegiances. We have no political agendas. Our agenda is merely the advancement of the economic status of our tribes. Aristocracy under ‘higher tribalism’ is a very ‘human’ form of government. No ideologies are needed. No justification for and search for power over others is needed. All wee need is do to negotiate on behalf of our tribes large or small. Under democracy our differences are a source of conflict. Under aristocracy our differences are a source of opportunity for mutual benefit. If we are trapped in an agrarian society all that we can really do is improve the land, and fight over the land if we want greater wealth. But under industrial capitalism, we are not constrained by the productivity of our land, but by the productivity of our people. And the productivity of our people is determined by the productivity of our institutions in assisting the people in cooperating, by making possible the voluntary organization of production.

    I would much rather live in a world filled with many enterprising aristocrats feeding off the status given them by their tribes and families, than I would in a world of bureaucrats living off the status obtained by creating conflict using ideology.

    And I am pretty sure that no moral man can justify any other arrangement for any reason other than the selfish accumulation of power, and the power to oppress others to conform to his will.

    All aristocracy requires is the grant of property rights and the reciprocal guarantee of those rights – and a militia consisting of all able bodied men equally willing to guarantee those rights.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 12:31:00 UTC