Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • RE: “I NEVER ERR” I don’t think you understand what I mean by that statement. I

    RE: “I NEVER ERR”

    I don’t think you understand what I mean by that statement.

    I mean that if I write a constructivist proof in P-logic that I don’t err.

    The reason is that it’s so damned difficult – impossible really – to err if you write one.

    But sure, I make mistakes all the time, like everyone else.

    A mistake has no bearing on the outcome.

    An error has a bearing on the outcome.

    It is very very difficult to make an error in P-logic.

    The phrasing “I never err” is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame I need to work within, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text in order to discover the opponent’s frame.

    All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site.

    The purpose of P-logic is falsificationary: we create definitions that consists of series, and supply demand curves, and use them to create fields of arguments that falsify more than justify.

    So P-logic seeks to expose so many falsehoods that only truthful statements can survive. As such where traditional philosophy seeks to find agreement between parties, P-logic falsifies all possibilities other than what we must agree to.

    In other words, the purpose of P-logic is to eliminate falsehood. It suppresses falsehood, bias, and deceit. And this is so novel that without some experience with math, computer science, or economics, it’s somewhere between counter-intuitive and inconceivable for most people.

    And that’s because P-logic is prosecutorial. You do’t end up disagreeing. You end up exposing the other party as a thief. This is why P-logic is so powerful.

    If the technique offends you, then It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have.

    I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences.

    And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 05:36:00 UTC

  • RE: “I NEVER ERR” I don’t’ think you understand what I mean by that statement. I

    RE: “I NEVER ERR”

    I don’t’ think you understand what I mean by that statement.

    I mean that if I write a constructivist proof that I don’t err.

    The reason is that it’s so fking difficult to err if you write one.

    The phrasing is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text.

    All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site.

    These statements offend you on a regular basis, for emotional reasons – probably because you can’t empathize with my methods. It’s because you attribute to my words the emotional intuition that you put into yours.

    It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have.

    I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences.

    And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 21:14:00 UTC

  • MANY PEOPLE DISLIKED DARWIN OR GALILEO TOO Just because something is unpleasant

    MANY PEOPLE DISLIKED DARWIN OR GALILEO TOO

    Just because something is unpleasant doesn’t mean its false.

    Nietzsche, Menger, Darwin, Hume, Galileo, Machiavelli, Aristotle, Socrates – all faced the same problem.

    But, if it’s true, it’s true.

    We had the British empirical enlightenment, then the enlightenment by the French, German, german-jewish, jewish-russian, jewish-french, jewish-american, chinese and now islamic revolutions against science, reason, and markets.

    The Jewish counter-enlightenment by Marxism, Cultural Marxism, Postmodernism, Feminism, and Human-biodiversity-denialism today, is a repeat of the Jewish counter enlightenment of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam In the ancient world – and bringing about a second dark age.

    We can either restore western civilization truth and reason or continue to descend into another dark age.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 20:32:00 UTC

  • PREDICTION OF THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF #CORONAVIRUS (#COVID19, #WUHANVIRUS )

    PREDICTION OF THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF #CORONAVIRUS (#COVID19, #WUHANVIRUS )

    —“Curt … this is off topic but … have you given any thought to the likely path for the Coronavirus? Been reading non-stop about this for weeks. It’s an interesting problem. No obvious answer I can see, though one could reasonbly throw darts at a chart of distributions of likely outcomes …”— Michael

    I have worked on it a little bit every day – but I’m in the same position everyone else is – it’s extremely transmissible (R2.5-3.8), and almost impossible to eradicate because of its carrier capacity (invisibility), carrier duration(weeks), and durability on surfaces, but it’s not fatal often enough or fast enough (2.3%).

    The problem with the illness is the duration – it keeps people out of the work force for at least two to three weeks, and up to six weeks or more including recovery. It requires hospital beds, medication, and ventilators (space and equipment) to keep them alive for weeks. So as ‘information’ the virus really, really difficult to quarantine. And difficult to eliminate because of that. And costly and time consuming. But it’s not that deadly.

    (Aside: Gross Horror Category: ““While a sneeze or a cough by someone infected with a “respiratory disease” can only infect others within a few meters, the virus-laden gaseous plume from an infected person having diarrhea can infect others up to 200 meters.“)

    This whole thing is rather interesting because its NOT as fatal as the Spanish flu. It’s not clear it’s even as fatal as the seasonal flu. The economic disruption we’re seeing is largely from the quarantine efforts, not from the disease itself. And I expect the drop in consumer activity as it spreads. But again, it’s just not that deadly. So, given that the death rates are low, it’s kind of questionable whether we are creating a scare, a crisis, an economic recession or depression, because of an overreaction.

    My current, and conservative. prediction is that unless we soften our efforts at containment and shut down the drama, it will cause long term interruption of economies because of its durability rather than deaths, and that it will just go on for years, dragging us down.

    So, I have a hunch that we will see a propaganda effort by the cdc and governments to say this is just going to go through the world population like any other flu, and that it’s no deadlier than any other if we take care of it. So “go about your business’, and go to the hospital if it gets bad. We are already seeing this. Look for the phrase “switch from containment to mitigation”. In other words it can’t be contained so we just have to get better at treating it.

    So, at present, its a bad case of the seasonal flu that for a minority of patients puts them in hospital care for a long time, and for an even smaller minority of patients with comorbidities it puts them at risk of mortality.

    If it continues at present rates, with present rates of expansion, at present rates of infection, it will definitely affect the world economy – which is what the markets said today.

    But at present, unless there is some dramatic increase in deaths, I expect cooler heads to eventually prevail.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 20:07:00 UTC

  • “So by the end of this century, as little as 1/5 of the population of the presen

    —“So by the end of this century, as little as 1/5 of the population of the presently-industrialized world could be responsible for perhaps (my number) 85% of productivity, living in physical comfort but shunted into an ever-tighter technical labor market requiring career dedication to stay ahead in (hence out of the underclass), while also keeping its boot on the neck of the other Westerners that (literally) couldn’t learn to code, and an eye on the roiling Third World population at the same time?”—Stan De Santis

    Correct.

    The consumption led capitalist order cannot persist.

    The redistirbutive socialist order cannot persist.

    We need a new order.

    That’s what I’m suggesting.

    Shifting from single to multiple economies.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 19:38:00 UTC

  • LOKI by Anne Summers Loki is everything degenerate. An immigrant (frost giant wh

    LOKI

    by Anne Summers

    Loki is everything degenerate. An immigrant (frost giant who is “related” only by a blood oath to Odin), is trans (mother of slipner; via an act of subversion so the gods could get a wall without paying for it), a thief and kidnapper (Idunn and the life giving apples), a liar (various ref.) and beta male practicer of GRRSM… Holds an important societal place… He’s the father of all that will literally destroy the world through consumption (Fenrer) and poison and hugs (Midgard Serpent). Seems like the myths are replaying themselves out.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 18:40:00 UTC

  • AN OATH FOR ALL OF US —“The revelation: As a man I have a duty to and necessar

    AN OATH FOR ALL OF US

    —“The revelation: As a man I have a duty to and necessarily a loyalty to men. The world needs men, and it takes men to make men. And I will not dodge that responsibility again.”— A Friend

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 18:35:00 UTC

  • (humor: When taking care of my mother at home, I work, usually cross legged, wit

    (humor: When taking care of my mother at home, I work, usually cross legged, with my laptop in my lap, and wearing headphones, and a cap. The cap limits visual distractions. The headphones are to block out the f—king inane television that I hate with a passion. Now, there is this ad running right now showing a series of obese women in underwear. One of these women (a black woman) invokes my disgust response and makes me shudder, gag, and my stomach turn. So to torture me, what does the (evil) Little Old Lady do? Shout “look!” just as the scene comes on, surprising me and making me look at the TV. Which immediately causes the usual disgust response. Then she sits back in her chair, slaps the arm of he chair, and giggles for five minutes. Little old ladies. omfg. They’re terrible. lol )

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 17:37:00 UTC

  • re: Jackson Crawford, Tyr vs. Odin as Chief God In order to suppress controversy

    re: Jackson Crawford, Tyr vs. Odin as Chief God

    In order to suppress controversy you’re overstating your case. You’re representing sources, because under the defensive protection of the scientific method, we don’t hypothesize without evidence. Meanwhile I think Dumezil and the rest of us are interested in the evolution of european natural religion over time. To claim we can’t use etymology which is about as close to genetic evidence that we come, is rather unscientific, and to claim we can’t apply the same method of analysis to mythology is also. And to claim the popularity of the farmer’s god over the ruling class’ god in a tripartite hierarchical society given the difference in those demographics isn’t scientific either. Every mythos we know of evolved like every political and legal technology and every narrative technology by rules similar to language. Every mythic tradition is subject to the same forensics.

    So you’re creating conflict where there isn’t any. It is very hard to argue that Odin didn’t rise to prominence some time between the IE expansion and first testimony (roman). That would mean that european natural religion had a deus ex machina moment and Odin came out of nowhere in contrast to the entire cross civilizational IE pantheon. In the context of all those european mythologies, Odin is a pretty clear rotation into prominence. And Odin is the ‘odd man out’ in european religion. Of the european iranic and indo-iranic branches, each group evolved deities to fulfill the needs of a survival narrative given geographic and cultural competition. Europeans gods are are interesting because conquering (and replacing) early neolithic farmers was easier than the more advanced civilizations of the indus and mesopotamian regions. They were under less adaptive pressure. Yet still we have Odin.

    Why? That’s the interesting question. How did he rotate into prominence and why? So to say Odin is the primary germanic god – well of course he is by the thirteenth century record. That doesn’t tell us anything interesting. It doesn’t provide explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us why and where he came from. What change or pressure or advantage caused the germanic branch of the european expansion to rotate a psychopomp into the primary god (all father) to replace sky father? What drove the germanic adaptation (rotation) of a psychopomp into the god of the aristocracy?

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 16:29:00 UTC

  • Where are aristotle, plato, socrates, zeno, epicurus, roman law, greek mathemati

    Where are aristotle, plato, socrates, zeno, epicurus, roman law, greek mathematics, and the christian destruction of the ancient world in your narrative?

    The talmud and the bible an koran are not an enlightenment but simply the marxism-socialism- postmodernism-feminism of the ancient world: the coutner-revolution against reason.

    The revolution in the ancient world was democritus’ atomism, socratic skepticism (failure), platonic idealism(failure), and the success of aristotelian reason, empiricism, proto-science, stoic and epicurean replacement of conflationary religion, and roman law and administration, creating markets for all peoples – but the semites (the equivalent of ghettos) couldn’t grasp that ‘uncontrolled vision’ and sought to restore controlled (feminine) monopoly and conflation using female methods of deceit, and the female method of undermining from within.

    Weak minds need certainty.

    Mindfulness doesn’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 12:17:00 UTC