Curt Doolittle

Form: Short Note

  • Evolution of European Writing

    [S]o whomever brought it up, it looks like humans favor a similar evolution of symbols and then incrementally evolve into pictorial or phonetic. I suspect that like most things, the mark-making process like the language speaking process evolves out of efficiency – laziness. lol So just as humans speak language humans can speak, humans draw characters humans can draw. Just as language evolves from harsh clear sounds to lazy songs (chinese), writing evolves from infrequent symbols, to that which we can write quickly.

    Chinese Jiahu symbols c. 6600 BC European Vinča Symbols c5300 BC European Dispillo Symbols c5000 BC Egyptian Hieroglyphic c. 3500 BCE – 400 CE Ur’s Proto-Cuneiform c3500 Sumerian Cuneiform c. 3200 BC Heiratic (egyptian) c. 2900 Cretan Hieroglyphic c. 2100 – 1700 BC Linear A c. 2500 – 1450 BC Linear B c. 1450 – 1200 BC Phoenician c. 1200–150 BC China c. 1200 BC. Mesoamerica c. 600 BC Germanic c. 500 AD?? Slavonic c. 900 AD??
    1606339_10153480518222264_8418714056481640365_o

  • Evolution of European Writing

    [S]o whomever brought it up, it looks like humans favor a similar evolution of symbols and then incrementally evolve into pictorial or phonetic. I suspect that like most things, the mark-making process like the language speaking process evolves out of efficiency – laziness. lol So just as humans speak language humans can speak, humans draw characters humans can draw. Just as language evolves from harsh clear sounds to lazy songs (chinese), writing evolves from infrequent symbols, to that which we can write quickly.

    Chinese Jiahu symbols c. 6600 BC European Vinča Symbols c5300 BC European Dispillo Symbols c5000 BC Egyptian Hieroglyphic c. 3500 BCE – 400 CE Ur’s Proto-Cuneiform c3500 Sumerian Cuneiform c. 3200 BC Heiratic (egyptian) c. 2900 Cretan Hieroglyphic c. 2100 – 1700 BC Linear A c. 2500 – 1450 BC Linear B c. 1450 – 1200 BC Phoenician c. 1200–150 BC China c. 1200 BC. Mesoamerica c. 600 BC Germanic c. 500 AD?? Slavonic c. 900 AD??
    1606339_10153480518222264_8418714056481640365_o

  • Getting Un-Lost: It’s All of the Above: Genetic, Cultural, Institutional, Territorial

    [I] think I have lost a bunch of you. It seems we get truth. It seems we get the high trust society. It seems we get the western model of truth and trust produce economic velocity. It seems we get the reproductive division of perception and cognition. It seems we get that the anglo saxon and classical liberal model could not tolerate the enfranchisement of women and the loss of the church as a separate house of government. It seems we get the century of mysticism, pseudoscience and propaganda caused by the Jewish century – now at an end.

    But now that I venture into history in search of motivation to restore or sense of kin selection, it seems like everyone wants a single axis of causation: genetic, cultural, institutional, territorial. But it’s all of them. Not one.

  • Getting Un-Lost: It’s All of the Above: Genetic, Cultural, Institutional, Territorial

    [I] think I have lost a bunch of you. It seems we get truth. It seems we get the high trust society. It seems we get the western model of truth and trust produce economic velocity. It seems we get the reproductive division of perception and cognition. It seems we get that the anglo saxon and classical liberal model could not tolerate the enfranchisement of women and the loss of the church as a separate house of government. It seems we get the century of mysticism, pseudoscience and propaganda caused by the Jewish century – now at an end.

    But now that I venture into history in search of motivation to restore or sense of kin selection, it seems like everyone wants a single axis of causation: genetic, cultural, institutional, territorial. But it’s all of them. Not one.

  • Sorry, But I Love My Betters

    [S]orry, but I am perfectly thrilled to have betters. Here in London I see lots of them. And I am thankful for them. I like what I do. I am glad they do what they do. I can see the Dutch and German in them. They’re bigger, taller, and better looking than my little Celtic self. Why anyone doesn’t want betters is beyond me. What scares me is proles. Especially in the white house.

  • Sorry, But I Love My Betters

    [S]orry, but I am perfectly thrilled to have betters. Here in London I see lots of them. And I am thankful for them. I like what I do. I am glad they do what they do. I can see the Dutch and German in them. They’re bigger, taller, and better looking than my little Celtic self. Why anyone doesn’t want betters is beyond me. What scares me is proles. Especially in the white house.

  • Another on Aristocracy(criticism) vs Republicanism(Justification)

    Science=critical.  Morality=justificationary. [I] have been working on the series: ‘obverse/revers, justification/criticism, morality/science, property-right/prohibition, GoldenRule/SilverRule, that is the western innovative alternative to eastern static ying-and-yang. Where they match sides, we only overlap in a venn diagram. Where they have a balance of equality and necessary cooperation, we have a division of labor and voluntary cooperation.

    OBVERSE: Positive Government uses Justification and ascent (republic) – the objective is to do good. Concentrate all resources behind single ideas: monopoly provision of commons: the government society. But we cannot know good, or agree on good. Napoleonic law of prior restraint. Scope of Property is limited. Standing is limited. Rule is by Coercive Government (ascent). Judgements are ideological and hypothetical. And this creates opportunity for rent seeking(parasitism). At best, this strategy is useful for transitioning a failed people.

    REVERSE: Negative Government uses Criticism and prosecution (aristocracy) – the objective is to do no harm. Distribute all resources according to preferences of the contributors: market provision of commons: the civic society. And we can know harm. Common law of dispute resolution. Scope is Property-en-toto, Standing is universal. Rule is by prohibitionary judgement (veto). Decisions are empirical and operational. And this strategy creates no opportunity for rent seeking (parasitism). At worst, this strategy is useful for maintaining a successful people.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine
    (London, July 16, 2015)

  • Another on Aristocracy(criticism) vs Republicanism(Justification)

    Science=critical.  Morality=justificationary. [I] have been working on the series: ‘obverse/revers, justification/criticism, morality/science, property-right/prohibition, GoldenRule/SilverRule, that is the western innovative alternative to eastern static ying-and-yang. Where they match sides, we only overlap in a venn diagram. Where they have a balance of equality and necessary cooperation, we have a division of labor and voluntary cooperation.

    OBVERSE: Positive Government uses Justification and ascent (republic) – the objective is to do good. Concentrate all resources behind single ideas: monopoly provision of commons: the government society. But we cannot know good, or agree on good. Napoleonic law of prior restraint. Scope of Property is limited. Standing is limited. Rule is by Coercive Government (ascent). Judgements are ideological and hypothetical. And this creates opportunity for rent seeking(parasitism). At best, this strategy is useful for transitioning a failed people.

    REVERSE: Negative Government uses Criticism and prosecution (aristocracy) – the objective is to do no harm. Distribute all resources according to preferences of the contributors: market provision of commons: the civic society. And we can know harm. Common law of dispute resolution. Scope is Property-en-toto, Standing is universal. Rule is by prohibitionary judgement (veto). Decisions are empirical and operational. And this strategy creates no opportunity for rent seeking (parasitism). At worst, this strategy is useful for maintaining a successful people.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine
    (London, July 16, 2015)

  • How To Repair The Western Press?

    [R]oman got me thinking last week, about the central difficulty with western press’ reliance on telling both sides of the STATED story, instead of whether they tell the truth given the INCENTIVES of both sides, regardless of what they state. Telling both sides merely gives the liars equal air play as the truth tellers.

    And it’s much easier for a ‘journalist’ to report on someone’s feelings, and speech than it is to report on facts and incentives. It’s much easier to create moral outrage or high ground with verbalism that obscures incentives, rather than the incentives themselves. To report ‘scientifically’ is possible with propertarian incentives and testimonial truth. We can systematically criticize what people say, and report on their incentives rather than their propaganda. But that means retraining a lot of ‘journalists’ and eliminating the perverse incentives that we have produced with the popular press. And the press, who free rides on destruction of the informational commons, may not like carrying the burden. On the other hand, we would have a lot fewer ‘journalists’ and they would be highly respected – and highly paid. And I think that’s something all of us would like.

  • How To Repair The Western Press?

    [R]oman got me thinking last week, about the central difficulty with western press’ reliance on telling both sides of the STATED story, instead of whether they tell the truth given the INCENTIVES of both sides, regardless of what they state. Telling both sides merely gives the liars equal air play as the truth tellers.

    And it’s much easier for a ‘journalist’ to report on someone’s feelings, and speech than it is to report on facts and incentives. It’s much easier to create moral outrage or high ground with verbalism that obscures incentives, rather than the incentives themselves. To report ‘scientifically’ is possible with propertarian incentives and testimonial truth. We can systematically criticize what people say, and report on their incentives rather than their propaganda. But that means retraining a lot of ‘journalists’ and eliminating the perverse incentives that we have produced with the popular press. And the press, who free rides on destruction of the informational commons, may not like carrying the burden. On the other hand, we would have a lot fewer ‘journalists’ and they would be highly respected – and highly paid. And I think that’s something all of us would like.