Curt Doolittle

Form: Sketch

  • I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verb

    I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many)

  • I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verb

    I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided.

    SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law)

    Zoroaster -> Abraham ->

    …|-> Rabbinicals->

    … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium)

    … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund.

    IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law)

    Plato -> Kant ->

    … … … … |->Marx(Soc.)

    … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe

    … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon)

    … … … … |->Frege->Kripke

    … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes

    REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law)

    Aristotle->Bacon/Newton …

    |->Locke/Smith/Hume

    … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek

    |->Poincare ->Hilbert

    |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing

    … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky

    |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick ->

    |->Maxwell -> (Many)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-01 13:20:00 UTC

  • I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verb

    I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many)

  • An interesting method of prepping a revolution might be to create an online game

    An interesting method of prepping a revolution might be to create an online game – very similar to how real war games are conducted – and to include LARP missions.

    Pokemon was interesting…. so were the assasin games.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-26 16:31:00 UTC

  • Here. I’ve combined Kashif’s experiential and my operational diagrams. Personall

    Here. I’ve combined Kashif’s experiential and my operational diagrams. Personally I simply see one axis and three implementations: 1) reproductive strategy, 2) vocabulary, and 3) temporality. We all justify our reproductive strategies. Our reproductive strategy biases our temporal perception in the division of perception, cognition, negotiation, advocacy, and labor. Our Grammar expresses our negotiation in that division of perception that suits our reproductive strategy. We all need a portfolio of decidability. Our decidability is reducible to our reproductive strategy, compromised by our survival and operating strategy. I think the hard thing to imagine is the dream state (associating) action state (planning) spectrum. How action oriented or experience oriented we are. If you put that as a fourth criteria it would probably mirror the solipsistic autistic spectrum that mirrors the construction of female to male brains. Nature works with a very small number of rules that can be used to create compleity through vast permutation. As far as I know all human behavior consists of the prey drive, from which we evolved the mating drive, the cooperating drive is an extension of the mating drive, and the linguistic drive (order) is an outgrowth of the cooperating drive. From simple things emerge complexity.
  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/22382356_153984701865095_22341501171

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/22382356_153984701865095_22341501171

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/22382356_153984701865095_2234150117167461519_o_153984701865095.jpg Here. I’ve combined Kashif’s experiential and my operational diagrams.

    Personally I simply see one axis and three implementations: 1) reproductive strategy, 2) vocabulary, and 3) temporality.

    We all justify our reproductive strategies. Our reproductive strategy biases our temporal perception in the division of perception, cognition, negotiation, advocacy, and labor. Our Grammar expresses our negotiation in that division of perception that suits our reproductive strategy.

    We all need a portfolio of decidability. Our decidability is reducible to our reproductive strategy, compromised by our survival and operating strategy.

    I think the hard thing to imagine is the dream state (associating) action state (planning) spectrum. How action oriented or experience oriented we are. If you put that as a fourth criteria it would probably mirror the solipsistic autistic spectrum that mirrors the construction of female to male brains.

    Nature works with a very small number of rules that can be used to create compleity through vast permutation. As far as I know all human behavior consists of the prey drive, from which we evolved the mating drive, the cooperating drive is an extension of the mating drive, and the linguistic drive (order) is an outgrowth of the cooperating drive.

    From simple things emerge complexity.Here. I’ve combined Kashif’s experiential and my operational diagrams.

    Personally I simply see one axis and three implementations: 1) reproductive strategy, 2) vocabulary, and 3) temporality.

    We all justify our reproductive strategies. Our reproductive strategy biases our temporal perception in the division of perception, cognition, negotiation, advocacy, and labor. Our Grammar expresses our negotiation in that division of perception that suits our reproductive strategy.

    We all need a portfolio of decidability. Our decidability is reducible to our reproductive strategy, compromised by our survival and operating strategy.

    I think the hard thing to imagine is the dream state (associating) action state (planning) spectrum. How action oriented or experience oriented we are. If you put that as a fourth criteria it would probably mirror the solipsistic autistic spectrum that mirrors the construction of female to male brains.

    Nature works with a very small number of rules that can be used to create compleity through vast permutation. As far as I know all human behavior consists of the prey drive, from which we evolved the mating drive, the cooperating drive is an extension of the mating drive, and the linguistic drive (order) is an outgrowth of the cooperating drive.

    From simple things emerge complexity.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-07 12:48:00 UTC

  • Here. I’ve combined Kashif’s experiential and my operational diagrams. Personall

    Here. I’ve combined Kashif’s experiential and my operational diagrams. Personally I simply see one axis and three implementations: 1) reproductive strategy, 2) vocabulary, and 3) temporality. We all justify our reproductive strategies. Our reproductive strategy biases our temporal perception in the division of perception, cognition, negotiation, advocacy, and labor. Our Grammar expresses our negotiation in that division of perception that suits our reproductive strategy. We all need a portfolio of decidability. Our decidability is reducible to our reproductive strategy, compromised by our survival and operating strategy. I think the hard thing to imagine is the dream state (associating) action state (planning) spectrum. How action oriented or experience oriented we are. If you put that as a fourth criteria it would probably mirror the solipsistic autistic spectrum that mirrors the construction of female to male brains. Nature works with a very small number of rules that can be used to create compleity through vast permutation. As far as I know all human behavior consists of the prey drive, from which we evolved the mating drive, the cooperating drive is an extension of the mating drive, and the linguistic drive (order) is an outgrowth of the cooperating drive. From simple things emerge complexity.
  • Equilibrium Between Agency(K) and Numbers(r)

    Equilibrium Between Agency(K) and Numbers(r)

    No automatic alt text available..jpeg
  • Equilibrium Between Agency(K) and Numbers(r)

    Equilibrium Between Agency(K) and Numbers(r)

    No automatic alt text available..jpeg

  • I had a very ‘evil’ thought. You know, during our rise to the hunter gatherer ph

    I had a very ‘evil’ thought. You know, during our rise to the hunter gatherer phase, women were herded as domesticated animals. During our hunter gatherer phase, they seem to have been members of families. During our agrarian phase they were treated as property, slaves, or labor as often as not. During our industrial phase – given the advent of birth control – they have sought equality with men, but the majority end up as single mothers and men as serial sex partners providing extra income. So is what we are seeing now, men simply – as are women – following incentives. Because the obvious incentive is for the majority of men to vote themselves sustenance from the state and abandon all contribution and responsibility for family. And in effect, return to the more traditional tribal role of leaving women to do the vast majority of the work, and spending the rest of the time ‘hunting and fishing’ so to speak.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-31 17:12:00 UTC