Curt Doolittle

Form: Sketch

  • The Scales of The Sacred.

    by Bill Joslin

    —“Our people are the most sacred thing we have left”—Adrienne Barbeau-Bot

    CONSTRUCTIONThe Immediate, The Temporal. : familial, family and kin. Kin is sacred. The intermediate: The Intertemporal. Tribal. Those families which share norms, traditions and culture. Culture, traditions and norms are sacred. Intergenerational: national. The accumulated social and common capital generated by kin and tribe. The commons en toto . The property we create together over generations via shared norms, traditions and culture intended for our future kin. The commons are sacred. Ancestor worship, hero (tribal archetypes) worship preserves the sacred across scale and time horizons. DESTRUCTION The dissolution of “tribe” resulting from universalism of enlightenment values (values reified out from within their natural limits), segregated commons from tribal and kin ownership, resulting in rampant consumption of commons. This paving the way for globalism where economics are sacred at the cost of kin, tribe, commons. Monotheism destroyed the operationally sacred in the name of universalism and the ideally sacred. This solidified the opportunity for parasitism of the commons, kin and tribe. RECONSTRUCTION Our people truly, operationally, and biologically are the most sacred upon which all other value depends. (CD: I can edit this for a little more analytic clarity but basically bill has done a great job of it, and I’m gonna run with the ‘my people are sacred’ as a religion message.)

  • The Scales of The Sacred.

    by Bill Joslin

    —“Our people are the most sacred thing we have left”—Adrienne Barbeau-Bot

    CONSTRUCTIONThe Immediate, The Temporal. : familial, family and kin. Kin is sacred. The intermediate: The Intertemporal. Tribal. Those families which share norms, traditions and culture. Culture, traditions and norms are sacred. Intergenerational: national. The accumulated social and common capital generated by kin and tribe. The commons en toto . The property we create together over generations via shared norms, traditions and culture intended for our future kin. The commons are sacred. Ancestor worship, hero (tribal archetypes) worship preserves the sacred across scale and time horizons. DESTRUCTION The dissolution of “tribe” resulting from universalism of enlightenment values (values reified out from within their natural limits), segregated commons from tribal and kin ownership, resulting in rampant consumption of commons. This paving the way for globalism where economics are sacred at the cost of kin, tribe, commons. Monotheism destroyed the operationally sacred in the name of universalism and the ideally sacred. This solidified the opportunity for parasitism of the commons, kin and tribe. RECONSTRUCTION Our people truly, operationally, and biologically are the most sacred upon which all other value depends. (CD: I can edit this for a little more analytic clarity but basically bill has done a great job of it, and I’m gonna run with the ‘my people are sacred’ as a religion message.)

  • The Future of Man

    October 30th, 2018 11:49 AM [S]o we have the genes for autobiographical (perfect) memory and we know the brain structure required. We have the genes for eliminating or drastically reducing pain. We have the genes for eliminating lactic acid buildup that would let us run continuously without tiring. We have the genes for heart size that improve our exercise ability. We have the genes for muscle density that improve our strength. It will take longer to find the genes for intelligence since there appear to be many involved, and it may be a developmental consequence of complexity. We will eventually find a way to prohibit errors in replication that give rise to accumulated cellular damage and eventually cancer. And it’s not inconceivable that we could begin our productive lives at 5-7 years old, and live in good health to well over 100. So, that revolution, if it is on the horizon, will be the next ‘big thing’. And one must choose between that vision (musk and augmentation) versus independent sentient machines (which I think will remain forever expensive, and I’m not sure will innovate faster than networks of humans will.)

  • ABRAHAMISM > MARXISM > POSTMODERNISM > FEMINISM: THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN

    ABRAHAMISM > MARXISM > POSTMODERNISM > FEMINISM: THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN ALL ITS FORMS AS MEANS OF RESTORING THE HERD (MONOPOLY)

    (important concept)

    Marxism: use of pseudoscience (labor theory of value), sophism (pilpul – Dialectical materialism), gossip and reputation destruction(critique alienation, class warfare) to undermine a social order (trust and cooperation) by the promise of a utopia (for a class), in exchange for allying in numbers.

    1 – Marxism-Communism-Socialism : suppression of private property in the means of production,

    vs,

    2 – Libertarianism: suppression of common property as the means of production,

    vs,

    3 – Neo-conservatism: suppression of nations as the means of production.

    Marxism of 1 – private property, 2 – common property, 3 – institutional property. Covers the Entire Scale. followed by the french contribution: 4 – Postmodernism, identity-race property.

    In other words, suppression of each class of property in order to create a class monopoly (underclass communism, middle class libertarian, political class neo conservatism).

    This requires little more than the academic use of the female reproductive and competitive strategy, which is to:

    DESTROY THE INSTITUTION OF PROPERTY AT DIFFERENT SCALES.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-29 10:31:00 UTC

  • MARXISM IN EVERYTHING: THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AT ALL LEVELS Marxism: suppre

    MARXISM IN EVERYTHING: THE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AT ALL LEVELS

    Marxism: suppression of private property in the means of production, vs, Libertarianism: suppression of common property as the means of production, vs, Neo-conservatism: suppression of nations as the means of production.

    All three promote MONOPOLIES (equalities) of the HERD (feminine reproductive strategy and intuition) rather than MARKETS (inequalities) of the PACK (make reproductive strategy and intuition).

    An expression of:

    —“the psychometric literature indicates, in regards to the masculine vs feminine, and the conservative vs liberal.

    Low openness/high conscientiousness (orderly, sensitive to disgust, will to create borders and demarcate categories, committed to his/her own covenants)

    High openness/low conscientiousness (imaginative, creative, disorderly, chaotic, tolerant of mess, fickle, temperamental, resistant of borders etc)

    It’s masculine vs feminine.

    A noun-use bias is masculine because it’s a label for an actual solid thing (order)

    A verb-use bias feminine because it’s the label for word describing an occurrence or something happening ie transformative ie chaotic – feminine.

    Masculine – order (Pack)

    Feminine – chaos. (Herd)”— Joel Harvey

    Because of the brain structure variation between female and male brains (although we can, each of us, exist along this spectrum including the middle of it).

    With Brandon Hayes and Joel Harvey

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-29 10:11:00 UTC

  • GRAMMARS MATTER: COMPACT MONOPOLY CONFLATIONARY STAGNANT DYSGENIC VS DIFFERENTIA

    GRAMMARS MATTER: COMPACT MONOPOLY CONFLATIONARY STAGNANT DYSGENIC VS DIFFERENTIATED MARKET DEFLATIONARY EVOLUTIONARY, EUGENIC SOCIAL ORDERS

    (important concepts)

    —“You might want to take a look at Eric Voegelin’s distinction between “compact” and “differentiated” symbolic systems.”– Chip Sills

    I understand it but it’s psychological not scientific and I work with the scientific model instead. In the end we face problems of computational cost (neural economy), and the grammars (models, objects, relations, values) that allow us to calculate (make comparisons, judgements, plans), offset by the frictions of status(face), and our order’s demand for either status(public/economic) or face (familial/personal), and local competition (homogeneity vs heterogeneity) and the institutions(norms, traditions, values, formal institutions) that arise from those conditions in the geography we sustain ourselves within.

    Simple people need simple anthropomorphic means of computation by free association (dream state, imagination, intuition) and more sophisticated people require means of calculation and computation that are increasingly more precise than the limits of human scale present in anthropomorphic models(grammars).

    So simple people and civilizations use high context/low precision grammars, and more complex civilizations use low context/high precision grammars. And our languages slowly evolve into “pidgins’ for high context, and large vocabulary nouns in low context for lower cognitive load, and for higher precision at the cost of higher cognitive load.

    So what Vogelin refers to as compact vs differentiated is an insightful version, rendering the choice psychological or arbitrary, where I use more precise, higher precision, terms and definitions, that expose the causes and consequences, and the non-arbitrariness of the relationship. Moreover, the CONFLATIONARY structure of MONOPOLY (monotheistic) religions and the MARKET structure of western civilization (poly grammatical) provides some of the best evidence of how monotheism (compact, monopoly, conflationary) models are easier to understand, but produce of necessity ignorance , stagnation, decline, and dysgenia.

    I hope this helps.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-28 08:38:00 UTC

  • Archetypes(Myth), MBTI (Literature), BIG5 (Philosophy), Propertarianism (logic)

    October 18th, 2018 10:28 AM SCALE: ARCHETYPES(Myth), MBTI (Literature), BIG5 (Philosophy), PROPERTARIANISM (logic)

    Think of MBTI as LIterature, and BIG5 as Philosophy, and Propertarianism as Logic: Graceful increase and decrease in precision according to the ability of the individual: SATISFACTION OF THE MARKETS FOR COMPREHENSION.

  • Evolutionary Spectrum: Literary, Empirical, and Scientific Conservative Authors

    October 18th, 2018 10:22 AM EVOLUTIONARY SPECTRUM: LITERARY, EMPIRICAL, AND SCIENTIFIC CONSERVATIVE AUTHORS [P]ropertarianism (law of cooperation) is a proof system (logic of falsification) for all cognitive dimensions, and survives falsification in all cognitively possible dimensions (science). Once you have the proof system (tests of falsification), ‘experiential stories’ and ‘opinions’ can be tested. In other words, it’s one thing to have other author’s options and another to show that they are TRUE. So It’s possible to show that the LITERARY conservatives of the Continental Tradition (secular theology) Nietzsche, Evola, Kuhnelt-Leddhin, Stirner, Kirk , Spengler and the EMPIRICAL conservatives (Social Science) Locke, Hume, Smith, Hamilton, Burke, Spencer, et all, were right. But it required SCIENTIFIC conservativism (Hayek, Doolittle) to explain WHY.

  • The Market Competition Between Meaning and Truth

    October 18th, 2018 10:53 AM THE MARKET COMPETITION BETWEEN MEANING AND TRUTH

    Education: the market competition between: …. POSITIVA: MEANING: Literature, Myth, Parable – The act of Generating constant relations, and The Promise of Reward. …. -vs- …. NEGATIVA: TRUTH: History, Law, Science, Mathematics – Falsify (test) constant relations: The act of Performing Due Diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit and The Warranty (Promise) of Truth (non-falsehood).

  • Archetypes(Myth), MBTI (Literature), BIG5 (Philosophy), Propertarianism (logic)

    October 18th, 2018 10:28 AM SCALE: ARCHETYPES(Myth), MBTI (Literature), BIG5 (Philosophy), PROPERTARIANISM (logic)

    Think of MBTI as LIterature, and BIG5 as Philosophy, and Propertarianism as Logic: Graceful increase and decrease in precision according to the ability of the individual: SATISFACTION OF THE MARKETS FOR COMPREHENSION.