Curt Doolittle

Form: Quote Commentary

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547270397 Timestamp) “John Mark white pilled me” — Matt F. (No higher compliment is to be had. Lawgivers are silent without Preachers.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547394609 Timestamp) —“So we pray you take heed. Do not dismiss our entreaty. Our demands are right, just, possible and in the interests of our peoples. And if demanding fails we shall compel. And if we compel, we will make the Horrors of the French Revolution turn so feeble, that men will remember our prosecution for ten thousand years. For when all our ancestors that have been before, and all our descendants that have yet to be, demand our lives in their honor, we will not shirk our duty to them. And we will have no mercy in our execution.”— The Second American Declaration

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547272330 Timestamp) —-“…Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw, And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods, Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape. Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.” — Xenophanes via @I_Vae_Victis_I

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547270397 Timestamp) “John Mark white pilled me” — Matt F. (No higher compliment is to be had. Lawgivers are silent without Preachers.)

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1547261606 Timestamp) SHRUNKEN OR PRESERVED HEADS? THE GAULS (GAELS) METHOD https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/07/the-gauls-really-did-embalm-the-severed-heads-of-enemies-research-shows

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547571421 Timestamp) AGENCY AND INTENTIONALITY by Bill Joslin (important concept)(core) (comments by CurtD) Test of Agency does not require intention (i.e. it’s not a synonym for free-will). Agency, in the context of biological and chemistry does not imply or require intentionality. i.e. “The active agent in soap is lye” This might clarify why the sociological definition of Agency, that being an actor’s ability to act outside of influences of Structure, is flawed (it presumes intentionality exists as a necessary component of agency i.e. acts of free will unfettered by structure) My stance regarding agency is simply this: …the ability to cause an effect…. (CurtD: Traditional definition of power, is “the ability to alter the probability of outcomes.”) In this context, structural influences can be the very means by which agency emerges and increases (rather then being distinguished apart from it) From here: the issue we are discussing when discussing limitations to agency within a sociology context relates to other actors (individual or institutional) which act in opposition to other agents. Thus my definition of AUTONOMY as being free from imposition upon one’s agency BY OTHER ACTORS. (Rather then natural or structural limitations to agency). Intentionality remains a subset of agency in this regards. Not a necessary component. (CurtD: Via Positiva Agency and Via Negativa Autonomy produce market competition for action. Intention (subjective value) is not relevant to the facts of ones agency and one’s autonomy) For example: in law intention is not the primary means by which guilt is established. There are circumstances where intention is not relevant i.e. manslaughter, criminal neglect etc. (CurtD: In law we test for due diligence and liability and intent to commit a crime only tangentially. In other words we separate the TRUTH (due diligence and liability), from what is MORAL (intent).) So for instance, the impact on society from a low IQ cohort is not a matter of lacking agency, but rather that their aggregate agency constitutes a net negative – their combined effect being a result of their agency, regardless of intentionality or deliberateness of their actions- no agency, no effect – no intentionality yet the effect remains. (CurtD: people do not need to intend harm to cause harm. When they cause harm by lack of due diligence, or intent, then THEY are to blame. But if they lack the AGENCY then WE are to blame for not constraining the harm that they can do.) It’s is precisely because of their agency that we seek constraints. Why? Because their agency imposes upon other actors resulting in a net drain on the agency of the group as a whole…. Thus autonomy being the measure of decidability. Why is this important? Because for laws, social norms etc, we are constructing structural limitations upon agents, to constrain their effects from being damaging (regardless of whether they intend it or not). In other words we are addressing their agency, their ability to cause an effect – regardless of their intentional choice. So how do these structural constraints NOT constitute an imposition upon their agency? 1) via negativa 2) not compelled. You are free to break the law (act outside the constraint) but not free from the consequences. The potential to act remains un-imposed upon. This is very different than imposing upon agency to prevent the acts from taking place. I.e. compelled behaviour. Compelled behavior being a defining quality of dystopian nightmares. Now extrapolated this to our current situations of sin taxes, compelled speech laws, deplatforming etc. These are all forms of prescriptive application of structural constraints i.e. impositions upon agency… (CurtD: this is the difference between moral blame and criminal blame, and humans being what we are, conflate ‘wrongness’ of different sorts, and blame of different persons when we sense ‘wrongness’. Then as we are perpetual victims of our tendency for conflation we use terms with specific meaning (moral, lawful, truthful, logical, reasonable etc to load and frame rather than to deflate and test.) -Bill Joslin

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547570431 Timestamp) WE HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD OF TRUTH —“I think this is the fatal flaw of propertarianism. It’s an unnecessary step to go this far if you already have parasite proof governance.”–Daniel It is not a bug or a flaw but a feature and it is by design. No, we have a higher standard of ‘lying’ – higher standard in that in matters of the commons you lie for having not done due diligence, not by intention. We are testing whether you performed due diligence, against harm, not whether you intended to harm. The purpose is to prevent both the originator of the lie and the propagators of the lie, just as we prevent the thief, and those who profit from the works of the thief. We are extending the defense of property from goods and services to information. This is necessary because desirable lies and harmful information spreads faster and more cheaply under industrialized distribution of information than true and beneficial information. And it is by desirable lies that the first abrahamic dark age of the abrahamic religions, and the Jewish, Muslim, Marxist, postmodernist, feminist, attempt to create the second abrahamic dark age, have been created, and spread – lies.

  • (FB 1547476616 Timestamp)

    (FB 1547476616 Timestamp) https://brilliantmaps.com/religion-world-map/

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547571421 Timestamp) AGENCY AND INTENTIONALITY by Bill Joslin (important concept)(core) (comments by CurtD) Test of Agency does not require intention (i.e. it’s not a synonym for free-will). Agency, in the context of biological and chemistry does not imply or require intentionality. i.e. “The active agent in soap is lye” This might clarify why the sociological definition of Agency, that being an actor’s ability to act outside of influences of Structure, is flawed (it presumes intentionality exists as a necessary component of agency i.e. acts of free will unfettered by structure) My stance regarding agency is simply this: …the ability to cause an effect…. (CurtD: Traditional definition of power, is “the ability to alter the probability of outcomes.”) In this context, structural influences can be the very means by which agency emerges and increases (rather then being distinguished apart from it) From here: the issue we are discussing when discussing limitations to agency within a sociology context relates to other actors (individual or institutional) which act in opposition to other agents. Thus my definition of AUTONOMY as being free from imposition upon one’s agency BY OTHER ACTORS. (Rather then natural or structural limitations to agency). Intentionality remains a subset of agency in this regards. Not a necessary component. (CurtD: Via Positiva Agency and Via Negativa Autonomy produce market competition for action. Intention (subjective value) is not relevant to the facts of ones agency and one’s autonomy) For example: in law intention is not the primary means by which guilt is established. There are circumstances where intention is not relevant i.e. manslaughter, criminal neglect etc. (CurtD: In law we test for due diligence and liability and intent to commit a crime only tangentially. In other words we separate the TRUTH (due diligence and liability), from what is MORAL (intent).) So for instance, the impact on society from a low IQ cohort is not a matter of lacking agency, but rather that their aggregate agency constitutes a net negative – their combined effect being a result of their agency, regardless of intentionality or deliberateness of their actions- no agency, no effect – no intentionality yet the effect remains. (CurtD: people do not need to intend harm to cause harm. When they cause harm by lack of due diligence, or intent, then THEY are to blame. But if they lack the AGENCY then WE are to blame for not constraining the harm that they can do.) It’s is precisely because of their agency that we seek constraints. Why? Because their agency imposes upon other actors resulting in a net drain on the agency of the group as a whole…. Thus autonomy being the measure of decidability. Why is this important? Because for laws, social norms etc, we are constructing structural limitations upon agents, to constrain their effects from being damaging (regardless of whether they intend it or not). In other words we are addressing their agency, their ability to cause an effect – regardless of their intentional choice. So how do these structural constraints NOT constitute an imposition upon their agency? 1) via negativa 2) not compelled. You are free to break the law (act outside the constraint) but not free from the consequences. The potential to act remains un-imposed upon. This is very different than imposing upon agency to prevent the acts from taking place. I.e. compelled behaviour. Compelled behavior being a defining quality of dystopian nightmares. Now extrapolated this to our current situations of sin taxes, compelled speech laws, deplatforming etc. These are all forms of prescriptive application of structural constraints i.e. impositions upon agency… (CurtD: this is the difference between moral blame and criminal blame, and humans being what we are, conflate ‘wrongness’ of different sorts, and blame of different persons when we sense ‘wrongness’. Then as we are perpetual victims of our tendency for conflation we use terms with specific meaning (moral, lawful, truthful, logical, reasonable etc to load and frame rather than to deflate and test.) -Bill Joslin

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547570431 Timestamp) WE HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD OF TRUTH —“I think this is the fatal flaw of propertarianism. It’s an unnecessary step to go this far if you already have parasite proof governance.”–Daniel It is not a bug or a flaw but a feature and it is by design. No, we have a higher standard of ‘lying’ – higher standard in that in matters of the commons you lie for having not done due diligence, not by intention. We are testing whether you performed due diligence, against harm, not whether you intended to harm. The purpose is to prevent both the originator of the lie and the propagators of the lie, just as we prevent the thief, and those who profit from the works of the thief. We are extending the defense of property from goods and services to information. This is necessary because desirable lies and harmful information spreads faster and more cheaply under industrialized distribution of information than true and beneficial information. And it is by desirable lies that the first abrahamic dark age of the abrahamic religions, and the Jewish, Muslim, Marxist, postmodernist, feminist, attempt to create the second abrahamic dark age, have been created, and spread – lies.