Form: Reply

  • HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE IDEAS WITH FICTION BUT NOT FALSELY? William Butchman —“W

    HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE IDEAS WITH FICTION BUT NOT FALSELY?

    William Butchman

    —“We have a universe of potentiality available to us. Is potential which has not yet been called into being ‘fiction’, is it ‘false’?”—

    Curt Doolittle

    No. We can state it falsely, but we cannot state that which we can envision is yet false. no. To respect natural law we must merely not make false claims. This is the beauty of fiction (literature) vs fictionalism (religion, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience – the discourse of conflation) Fiction makes no truth claims, it merely spreads ideas. If it makes truth claims, (particularly ‘smear campaigns against past idols) then that is not fiction but fictionalization – conflation)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 14:30:00 UTC

  • CHASING DOWN ‘LIBERTARIAN’ (free rider) SMELLS Matt Mitchell —“Curt, is there

    CHASING DOWN ‘LIBERTARIAN’ (free rider) SMELLS

    Matt Mitchell

    —“Curt, is there anything in particular that I said that goes against what you said? For markets to function there needs to be a particular order in the first place, right? Things can change in time, yes, though there are things that do not change or are unlikely to change. Forcing people to live one way or the other, doesn’t help in any way.”—

    Curt Doolittle

    Hmmm…. well, you know, I have a job right? And in my job I look for opportunities to encourage people to think ‘completely’. So to some degree I’m just ‘riffing’ off your post to get people to think. But in the context of your post, you are implying steady state, homogeneity, and religious authority necessary to indoctrinate those beliefs – when people merely choose the beliefs that suit their circumstances.

    So that I felt the need to do was to remind you and others, that we are not agrarians any longer. That the world of modern urbanity is much more like living as diasporic tribes floating between city-markets, trading our goods (skills, labor), and that we do not have the steady state, the homogeneity, or the ability to indoctrinate under these conditions, and as such we can only struggle to impose limits and exceptions (laws) in a jurisdiction, not ‘regularities’ (beliefs).

    So I was reacting to a ‘libertarian smell’, and ‘false assumption’ smell to your argument.

    Trade always existed. Cities were created by violence. Markets were created by violence. Trade routes were created by violence. More violence than the thieves could muster to prey upon them.

    The truth is, we have to fight. And that’s all there is to it. So what is the social order that both allows us to fight and eliminates the need to fight?

    Rule of law.

    So yes, forcing people to live under increasing suppression of parasitism is unquestionably in all of history a ‘good’. It may in fact, be the good that produces the highest returns of all. Even more so than the division of labor. Because it is the first good that makes the division of labor possible.

    😉

    Force, fire, water, air, and words, are good things put to good purpose. Or bad things put to bad purpose. They are not intrinsically good or bad.

    ———–definition———–

    “Code smell”, also known as bad smell, in computer programming code, refers to any symptom in the source code of a program that possibly indicates a deeper problem. According to Martin Fowler, “a code smell is a surface indication that usually corresponds to a deeper problem in the system”.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 13:29:00 UTC

  • UNIVERSALISM AND PARTICULARISM ARE STRATEGIES @Eli I don’t think universalism ha

    UNIVERSALISM AND PARTICULARISM ARE STRATEGIES

    @Eli

    I don’t think universalism has to be ‘taught’. It’s just the rational choice when you are wealthy enough to gamble on the potential to increase the scale of cooperation. Conversely, non-cooperation in a condition of wealth where you forgo opportunities for cooperation is costly. These are evident in all walks of life.

    I think universalism arises in periods of empire (colonialism) and declines in periods of contraction – and now that the gains of the enlightenment have been equi-distributed across the world, I think that we are in a period of contraction so that particularism is returning to the ‘natural state’ of man.

    I have been looking at history as progressions through economic phases, and the demand for different abilities at each phase and scale and I see a world where calories are of little coast and consequence but VALUE to one another is reduced to zero OTHER than political value. This is what we are ‘intuiting’.

    This is a ‘return to normal’ so to speak.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 12:45:00 UTC

  • WHO IS CURT DOOLITTLE, IS HE AN ECONOMIST, AND WHY DOES HE TALK ABOUT ECONOMICS?

    WHO IS CURT DOOLITTLE, IS HE AN ECONOMIST, AND WHY DOES HE TALK ABOUT ECONOMICS?

    (From elsewhere)(meant as an insult)

    (RESPONSE: Philosopher of science: social science, natural law, testimony, and epistemology: Truth. My criticisms of economics are in the context of the truth or falsehood of economic propositions given the state of immaturity of the discipline. And you are welcome to attempt to find any economist who will debate me on any subject in the discipline. But you will find that most economists are only adequate mathematicians and inadequate philosophers, and that truth is a specialization in itself. 😉 ).


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-24 07:48:00 UTC

  • Governments as a Hierarchy of Producers of Commons – Where People Possess Common Interests Only

    —“My question is how can government peruse multiple solutions while remaining expedient instead of the “one size fits all” solutions that seem to only cause more conflict.”— You can pursue many commons, you cannot pursue multiple norms (cultures). You can form i) a federal government that provides only the functions of insurer of last resort, ii) a regional government that provides only infrastructure commons, and iii) a local government that provides normative commons. And lastly, iv) a family that provides what is necessary to the particular circumstance. People need what they need to compete.

  • Governments as a Hierarchy of Producers of Commons – Where People Possess Common Interests Only

    —“My question is how can government peruse multiple solutions while remaining expedient instead of the “one size fits all” solutions that seem to only cause more conflict.”— You can pursue many commons, you cannot pursue multiple norms (cultures). You can form i) a federal government that provides only the functions of insurer of last resort, ii) a regional government that provides only infrastructure commons, and iii) a local government that provides normative commons. And lastly, iv) a family that provides what is necessary to the particular circumstance. People need what they need to compete.

  • Regarding Nietzsche’s Positive Statements About Persians

      um. well, I think we have to keep in mind, that Nietzsche is a literary and aesthetic philosopher, not a mathematical, legal, or political one. He is trying to restore our civilization’s aesthetic from its debasement by christianity. But he holds no appreciation for (or from what I gather, understanding of) math, law, economics, and politics – all of which are forms of measurement. And so, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And he seems to think that it’s the literature that causes the culture, rather than the group evolutionary strategy, and the institutions the group puts in place, and that literature JUSTIFIES that strategy and institution – it does not CREATE it unless we forcibly indoctrinate people into it. The Persians were WEALTHIER than the greeks. Of course there will be aspects of the wealthier people to admire. But the evidence is that the greeks were militarily, economically, and institutionally, and culturally,and intellectual superior to the Persians. The question we have to ask is why were the greeks superior to the Persians, and the romans superior to the greeks and to the carthaginians? If one views the supernatural writings of the Persians and semites, the platonic writings of the greeks, and the legal, political, and stoic writings of the romans, we obtain a clue. If we view the economy of the Persians, the greeks, and the romans we obtain another clue. If we view the political order of the Persians, the greeks, the carthaginians, and the romans, we get another clue. Now, christianity was successful in most part because (a) the plagues, (b) the slave economy, (c) the barbarian invasions, (d) the comparative wealth of the fertile crescent vs the european territories, (e) the dependence of rome upon maintaining control of trade routes and food supplies in remote areas (f) the conquest of decimated western rome by the greek romans (byzantines), (g) and the conquest of the byzantines by the muslims just as the barbarians had defeated rome. Lying is cheap and christianity is lying. The only way that small poorer numbers in the west can compete is the way Aryans always competed: using advanced technology, professional warriors, and agility ( ooda-loops) to out-maneuver (decide FASTER) to defeat enemies dependent upon slave soldiers, large numbers, and central rule. The only people to develop truth, reason, and pre-science were the greeks. And the only people to develop natural law were the romans. The only people to create the scientific revolution were the europeans. And the only thing that seems to have been an impediment is the lies created by zoroaster, spread by the persians to the semites then to the europeans. So unlike Nietzche, I see the greeks as rebels against persian mysticism, I see the romans rebels against greek platonism, and I see the church as existing only because it was a government imposed by conquest on a people exhausted from immigration of barbarians, invasion by barbarians, and decimated by plague. THere are indeed people who are moved by the occult, by the divine/supernatural, by myth, by literature, by history. But they can choose what they are moved by. Law is not a choice, it is required, and it doesn’t require belief in anything. Economics do not require belief, or agreement. They merely exist by force of law. And law by force of violence. Nietzche, good christian, and good german, as he was – informed by literature, trying to escape its prison, saw only literature as cause – not as justification for incentives. Not as justification of priors. Not as the heroism of institutions whose origins and strategy are long forgotten.

  • Regarding Nietzsche’s Positive Statements About Persians

      um. well, I think we have to keep in mind, that Nietzsche is a literary and aesthetic philosopher, not a mathematical, legal, or political one. He is trying to restore our civilization’s aesthetic from its debasement by christianity. But he holds no appreciation for (or from what I gather, understanding of) math, law, economics, and politics – all of which are forms of measurement. And so, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And he seems to think that it’s the literature that causes the culture, rather than the group evolutionary strategy, and the institutions the group puts in place, and that literature JUSTIFIES that strategy and institution – it does not CREATE it unless we forcibly indoctrinate people into it. The Persians were WEALTHIER than the greeks. Of course there will be aspects of the wealthier people to admire. But the evidence is that the greeks were militarily, economically, and institutionally, and culturally,and intellectual superior to the Persians. The question we have to ask is why were the greeks superior to the Persians, and the romans superior to the greeks and to the carthaginians? If one views the supernatural writings of the Persians and semites, the platonic writings of the greeks, and the legal, political, and stoic writings of the romans, we obtain a clue. If we view the economy of the Persians, the greeks, and the romans we obtain another clue. If we view the political order of the Persians, the greeks, the carthaginians, and the romans, we get another clue. Now, christianity was successful in most part because (a) the plagues, (b) the slave economy, (c) the barbarian invasions, (d) the comparative wealth of the fertile crescent vs the european territories, (e) the dependence of rome upon maintaining control of trade routes and food supplies in remote areas (f) the conquest of decimated western rome by the greek romans (byzantines), (g) and the conquest of the byzantines by the muslims just as the barbarians had defeated rome. Lying is cheap and christianity is lying. The only way that small poorer numbers in the west can compete is the way Aryans always competed: using advanced technology, professional warriors, and agility ( ooda-loops) to out-maneuver (decide FASTER) to defeat enemies dependent upon slave soldiers, large numbers, and central rule. The only people to develop truth, reason, and pre-science were the greeks. And the only people to develop natural law were the romans. The only people to create the scientific revolution were the europeans. And the only thing that seems to have been an impediment is the lies created by zoroaster, spread by the persians to the semites then to the europeans. So unlike Nietzche, I see the greeks as rebels against persian mysticism, I see the romans rebels against greek platonism, and I see the church as existing only because it was a government imposed by conquest on a people exhausted from immigration of barbarians, invasion by barbarians, and decimated by plague. THere are indeed people who are moved by the occult, by the divine/supernatural, by myth, by literature, by history. But they can choose what they are moved by. Law is not a choice, it is required, and it doesn’t require belief in anything. Economics do not require belief, or agreement. They merely exist by force of law. And law by force of violence. Nietzche, good christian, and good german, as he was – informed by literature, trying to escape its prison, saw only literature as cause – not as justification for incentives. Not as justification of priors. Not as the heroism of institutions whose origins and strategy are long forgotten.

  • Q&A: “CURT, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT INTELLECTUAL HISTORY?” —“How do you feel abo

    Q&A: “CURT, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT INTELLECTUAL HISTORY?”

    —“How do you feel about just general ‘intellectual history’? Has anyone written useful accounts of the appropriate methodology or does one have to approach it piecemeal?”— A Friend.

    Will Durant,

    1) the lessons of history

    2) the story of philosophy

    3) the greatest minds and ideas of all time.

    Now, Durant is a proper catholic frenchman, and he is clearly a fan of democracy, and so you have to discount his value judgements.

    But he is a superb and accessible author, and I have found that for most people, you get a better foundation with his overview – the overview of a historian (empiricist).

    Most people who write about philosophy only know philosophy. Durant studied philosophy and came to (the correct) conclusion that there are NO ANSWERS THERE, but that all the answers exist in history. (he is right)..

    Philosophy is just literature. You might as well read fantasy stories. Instead, read history, particularly economic history. And science if you can manage it.

    Philosophy and literature advocates; history records; and measurement provides information, and as the three converge we find some possiblilty of truth candidate.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-22 12:35:00 UTC

  • yep. you are right. data shift dramatic over past decade. thx. 🙂

    yep. you are right. data shift dramatic over past decade. thx. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-20 21:37:00 UTC