Curt Doolittle

Form: Short Note

  • "All Religions Need A Book"

    [A]ll religions need a ‘book’. I have been working under that premise for over a decade. Once you have a book, philosophy doesn’t float. You have an authoritarian position to refer to. Debate over that position creates invention in the minds of those who are interested. If the book is very good, then the results are self organizing. If you have a book and advocates, then you have political means. If you have a book, advocates and members, then you political power. If you have political power you can institute your ideas. If your book morally condones violence in the pursuit of your ideas, you have an eternal irrevocable advantage independent of current circumstance. The problem for the west is that we have never had a book. Plato failed. The monarchs ruled by tradition. The church spoke in allegory. Smith Hume and Jefferson wrote advice not rules, and they created the catastrophic error that the near universal aristocratization of the English could have the same breadth of application as the doctrine of the church.

  • “All Religions Need A Book”

    [A]ll religions need a ‘book’. I have been working under that premise for over a decade. Once you have a book, philosophy doesn’t float. You have an authoritarian position to refer to. Debate over that position creates invention in the minds of those who are interested. If the book is very good, then the results are self organizing. If you have a book and advocates, then you have political means. If you have a book, advocates and members, then you political power. If you have political power you can institute your ideas. If your book morally condones violence in the pursuit of your ideas, you have an eternal irrevocable advantage independent of current circumstance. The problem for the west is that we have never had a book. Plato failed. The monarchs ruled by tradition. The church spoke in allegory. Smith Hume and Jefferson wrote advice not rules, and they created the catastrophic error that the near universal aristocratization of the English could have the same breadth of application as the doctrine of the church.

  • "All Religions Need A Book"

    [A]ll religions need a ‘book’. I have been working under that premise for over a decade. Once you have a book, philosophy doesn’t float. You have an authoritarian position to refer to. Debate over that position creates invention in the minds of those who are interested. If the book is very good, then the results are self organizing. If you have a book and advocates, then you have political means. If you have a book, advocates and members, then you political power. If you have political power you can institute your ideas. If your book morally condones violence in the pursuit of your ideas, you have an eternal irrevocable advantage independent of current circumstance. The problem for the west is that we have never had a book. Plato failed. The monarchs ruled by tradition. The church spoke in allegory. Smith Hume and Jefferson wrote advice not rules, and they created the catastrophic error that the near universal aristocratization of the English could have the same breadth of application as the doctrine of the church.

  • Unfortunately, Pseudoscientific Language Is Really Useful.

    [T]he question is whether “truth” in the context of Critical Rationalism is an analogy or not. I posit that it’s analogistic language just like nearly all uses of ‘truth’. The only action that can exist is attestation. And nothing can be said to be ‘true’ independent of someone’s cognition. I’m trying to eliminate pseudoscientific language. Because pseudoscientific language is unethical and immoral. It may be efficient. It may be useful. It may even in some cases be conceptually necessary. All disciplines rely upon such contrivances for the sake of brevity and ease. These contrivances my be utilitarian, but that is different from saying that they are ‘true’.

  • Unfortunately, Pseudoscientific Language Is Really Useful.

    [T]he question is whether “truth” in the context of Critical Rationalism is an analogy or not. I posit that it’s analogistic language just like nearly all uses of ‘truth’. The only action that can exist is attestation. And nothing can be said to be ‘true’ independent of someone’s cognition. I’m trying to eliminate pseudoscientific language. Because pseudoscientific language is unethical and immoral. It may be efficient. It may be useful. It may even in some cases be conceptually necessary. All disciplines rely upon such contrivances for the sake of brevity and ease. These contrivances my be utilitarian, but that is different from saying that they are ‘true’.

  • Transnational Insurgencies : "Save For Future Use"

    [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism, in which we obtain property rights in exchange with others, to whom we grant them, under the agreement that we will defend each other’s rights, can or cannot know boundaries. I cannot understand how it can consider boundaries. It should be just as easy for a dedicated minority of insurgents to influence western property rights as it has been for a dedicated minority of insurgents in other cultures to attempt to alter their allocations of property and property rights – albeit, they don’t use that conceptualization or terminology. Knights are just as important today as they were in the past. WE ARE COMING FOR YOU WASHINGTON D.C.

  • Transnational Insurgencies : “Save For Future Use”

    [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism, in which we obtain property rights in exchange with others, to whom we grant them, under the agreement that we will defend each other’s rights, can or cannot know boundaries. I cannot understand how it can consider boundaries. It should be just as easy for a dedicated minority of insurgents to influence western property rights as it has been for a dedicated minority of insurgents in other cultures to attempt to alter their allocations of property and property rights – albeit, they don’t use that conceptualization or terminology. Knights are just as important today as they were in the past. WE ARE COMING FOR YOU WASHINGTON D.C.

  • Transnational Insurgencies : "Save For Future Use"

    [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism, in which we obtain property rights in exchange with others, to whom we grant them, under the agreement that we will defend each other’s rights, can or cannot know boundaries. I cannot understand how it can consider boundaries. It should be just as easy for a dedicated minority of insurgents to influence western property rights as it has been for a dedicated minority of insurgents in other cultures to attempt to alter their allocations of property and property rights – albeit, they don’t use that conceptualization or terminology. Knights are just as important today as they were in the past. WE ARE COMING FOR YOU WASHINGTON D.C.

  • Transnational Insurgencies : “Save For Future Use”

    [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism, in which we obtain property rights in exchange with others, to whom we grant them, under the agreement that we will defend each other’s rights, can or cannot know boundaries. I cannot understand how it can consider boundaries. It should be just as easy for a dedicated minority of insurgents to influence western property rights as it has been for a dedicated minority of insurgents in other cultures to attempt to alter their allocations of property and property rights – albeit, they don’t use that conceptualization or terminology. Knights are just as important today as they were in the past. WE ARE COMING FOR YOU WASHINGTON D.C.

  • Argument, Moral Blindness, and Institutions

    [I] can tell your moral code and political preference by the method you use to argue, as much as I can the moral bias of your arguments. And I’m still surprised at myself, despite knowing that (other than conservatives) people are morally blind, I try to reason with people. Now the fact is, that I know when I’m doing it, that it’s impossible. Like anyone else I hope to do a little education – to provide a light into the moral darkness. But, my objective is actually to learn how to state my arguments in a multitude of fashions, such that they explain those different areas of moral blindness. I know I cannot convince others to change their moral bias. It’s genetic. But I can consistently improve my arguments. My arguments are prescriptive. I know that is impossible. What I can do is construct institutions that allow us to cooperate despite these moral biases. But in the end, we are other than gene-machines, using very elaborate language to justify our reproductive strategies.