Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • MAGIC AND GOD AND FRAMES –“I wonder what brought “magic” and “god” in one topic

    MAGIC AND GOD AND FRAMES

    –“I wonder what brought “magic” and “god” in one topic? People either measure through high context (not magic) low precision, or construe low context to look like high context so as to pretend the first (magic). Those who can ‘measure’ through low context, high precision can explain what they are doing, but the audience mostly can’t grok it… so they try use the audience’s language: high context, low precision.”— Mea Culba

    1 – You are correct, but the terminology is ‘high context low precision’ vs ‘high precision, low context’. (I’ve modified your prose to make use of those terms instead)

    2 – technically speaking there are very few grammars available to man. And the grammar of ‘magic’ is used to ascribe cause or intent to that which is not understood. So combining fiction and magic, we get religion. Adding law gets us monotheism.

    3 – people can be spoken to in the language of analogy, parable, and fiction, without engaging in lying (religion).

    We all defend our frames. The abrahamic lies have affected all but the far east. It took me a long time to understand the damage caused by abrahamism (lying). And it’s because people are so vulnerable to that form of lying, that it’s been so dangerous and destructive.

    Abrahamism combines lying and conflation into not only monotheism but a monopoly frame. This is terribly simple for the human mind. It is also, because it does NOT consist of competition, a PRISON for the human mind.

    (BTW: Mea Culba: You write very smart things on a regular basis despite jumping a language barrier.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 08:16:00 UTC

  • LOVE THIS GUY: DUERTE: “SHOOT ME IF I BECOME DICTATOR” Skin in the game. That’s

    http://news.trust.org/item/20180122112505-vmz4cI LOVE THIS GUY: DUERTE: “SHOOT ME IF I BECOME DICTATOR”

    Skin in the game. That’s skin in the game.Updated Jan 22, 2018, 8:09 AM

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 08:09:00 UTC

  • THE INFLUENCE OF OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE Friend says –“I have to stop reading your

    THE INFLUENCE OF OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE

    Friend says –“I have to stop reading your posts because the vocabulary is framing my thoughts, and I prefer aesthetic framing.”–

    There is a great deal to learn from that statement.

    1 – Frames (grammars) of constant relations affect your thinking.

    2 – All of us are more or less sensitive to different inflationary grammars (analogical grammars), because of the divergence in our senses, experiences, and preferences, while our thoughts are made commensurable if not identical, via deflationary grammars – with operational being the highest context highest precision, dimensionally complete grammar. (This is profoundly important.)

    3 – You can increase opportunities for low cost communication by inflating the frame by inflationary grammar and semantics. You can increase precision by deflating the frame with deflationary grammar and semantics.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 08:03:00 UTC

  • RICHARD SPENCER’S “AUTISTIC ARGUMENTS” CRITICISM (from Eric Best) —“The “autis

    RICHARD SPENCER’S “AUTISTIC ARGUMENTS” CRITICISM

    (from Eric Best)

    —“The “autistic arguments” label comes I think from frustration with people who can’t stop themselves from getting sidetracked into unproductive debates that miss the point. It isn’t that there is no place for it, but that it often invades everywhere else and leads nowhere, and it’s putting the cart before the horse. You can formulate the most water tight argument and explanation for how society should change but they aren’t magic words that will manufacture the power needed to do anything. That’s why RS frequently makes the point that power precedes law, not the other way around. People coming from the libertarian milieu often have trouble with that.”— Eric Best

    I hear three separate arguments there, and I agree with all of them.

    Thoughts:

    There are in fact magic words, but those words are INCENTIVES not EXCUSES or JUSTIFICATIONS. The problem is that ethno-natioalism is an incentive but an INSUFFICIENT ONE.

    The incentive we need is an actionable set of demands. (which because of my trenchant health issues am behind in producing.)

    And in my experience, libertarians use Pilpul, because libertarian theology evolved from Pilpul->Abrahamism->Kantianism->Marxism->Libertarianism, despite their claims it arose from the empirical chain of Aristotle->Locke->Smith/Hume->Darwin->Menger.

    The way we organize and produce an outcome that allows us to MAINTAIN POWER has always been and always will be LAW: contract on terms.

    So I agree with Richard on almost everything. And he has moved his positioning correctly in response to what we learned last year.

    But the problem is, ethnonationalism is a defensive, not offensive strategy. One needs incentives sufficient to cause action, and a plan of action that is sufficient to make use of those incentives to produce an outcome.

    And that means strategy and policy expressed in law.

    Because western civilization consists almost entirely of the our law – the rest is all decoration.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 07:54:00 UTC

  • GODS Any technology indistinguishable from magic will appear as magic. Any life

    GODS

    Any technology indistinguishable from magic will appear as magic. Any life form indistinguishable from a god, will appear as a god. As far as I know we are among the first possible life forms in this particular universe. And neither god nor magic exists except as appearance. And if we ever encounter magic or god it will mean we will soon be enslaved or dead.

    We ‘calculate’ anthropomorphically because our brains contain means of anthropomorphic representation necessary for our action in the universe at human scale.

    Gods provide us with units of measurement that provide decidability across differences in value on one hand, as does a strong father in a household, a headman in a tribe, a king in a territory, and a judge in a polity.

    Decidability provides us with mindfulness, since we are not able to form secure relations with the numbers of people who share our territorial space as super predators. Role playing with a fictional father, headman, king, judge two whom one cannot lie, provides us wth mindfulness. appealing to that fictional father, headman, king, judge that has unlimited abilities provides mindfulness in suffering and despair.

    Humans are very simple creatures. Nothing is very hard to understand. It is just tremendous work to sift through the layer cake of lies we build to provide us with false mindfulness in our ignorance, instead of truth mindfulness in our knowledge. )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 23:21:00 UTC

  • AMERICANS DYING PER WEEK OF THIS FLU I know this is how I’m going to die if I am

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/flu-outbreak-aussie-flu-japanese-flu-america-cdc-100-dying-a-week-a8169896.html100 AMERICANS DYING PER WEEK OF THIS FLU

    I know this is how I’m going to die if I am not very careful, since asthma leads to copd, and such. I hope I go in a revolution instead.

    I was in the UK in the mid 90’s when people died from the flu there. I lost almost 30 lbs. Terrible stuff.

    No more airports for me except in summer. lolUpdated Jan 21, 2018, 10:48 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 22:48:00 UTC

  • SCIENCE WON. PHILOSOPHY IS DONE. I don’t really know anyone who writes philosoph

    SCIENCE WON. PHILOSOPHY IS DONE.

    I don’t really know anyone who writes philosophy outside of science and logic that is anything but moral fictionalist. There are scientists, and logicians, and fictionalists. We have moral fiction, religious fiction, science fiction, we and fiction proper, as well as pseudoscience, pseudo religion, and pseudo-philosophy(pseudo-rationalism). We all daydream in our favorite method of daydreaming. Unfortunately some people conflate the fictional, with the achievable, with the true.

    Each is obvious from the grammar and semantics they make use of. It’s not an opinion, it’s simply fact.

    —“Your statement is philosophy.”— Cat Tibath

    My statement is one of science. That science is testimony. In this case, the grammar and semantics of truths, fictions and falsehoods.

    As far as I know, traditional grammar and semantics of philosophy is done as other than fictionalism (pseudoscience). Either we are seeking testimonial (true) speech or we are seeking something not testimonial (true). And instead seeking the preferable and the good. And as far as I know, that is all that is left for philosophy: choice of individual preference, and group preference (good). For that which is true, moral, ethical is just science. And that which is good or preferable is merely choosable by aesthetics, not decidable by truth.

    The vast majority of philosophy, and in particular all conteinental philosophy, is, as far as I know, moral fictionalism by people too lacking in interpersonal insight to write a great novel.

    Science won.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 22:37:00 UTC

  • ERIC WEINSTEIN ON THE FAILURE OF THE GATED INSTITUTIONAL NARRATIVE Including: –

    ERIC WEINSTEIN ON THE FAILURE OF THE GATED INSTITUTIONAL NARRATIVE

    Including:

    – The “Adjective-Profession-Name” Formula.

    – The Disagreeables,

    – And The “No-Living-Heroes” Theory.

    1) Consider these adjectives:

    Embattled

    Controversial

    Divisive

    Reclusive

    Provocative

    Struggling

    Right-Wing

    Eccentric

    Self-styled

    Far-Left

    Recovering

    Disgraced

    Self-Promoting

    Free-thinking

    Volatile

    etc.

    2) These adjectives are really reserved terms and the ‘tells’ of mainstream media letting you know who is off-narrative and who they have marked for reputation neutralization through FUD (Fear-Uncertainty and Doubt) campaigns.

    3) So what’s wrong with calling a professor who is controversial, a “controversial professor” you may fairly ask? The problem is that MSM builds client side architecture in your own mind that you don’t notice. Proof? Check the graphic attached.

    4) Apparently in the entire history of the internet, this tweet is the first to ever use the phrase “controversial professor Paul Krugman” to describe @paulkrugman even though he is famous for being a controversial professor.

    So…how can that be?

    5) Let’s first dig a bit to look for positive framings of my colleague “controversial professor” @jordanbpeterson. Consider these attachments for a man whose fame is largely due to being a noble inspirational heroic maverick.

    The point is that real humans don’t talk like this.

    6) My point here is that our minds are programmed to recognize the “Gated Institutional Narrative” or GIN and to take our emotional instructions from it. This is Orwell’s 1984 Newspeak: Adjective-Profession-Target.

    Or so asserts self-styled Internet personality

    7) So who are the targets? Men and women who are off the charts on the Big-5 psychometric for disagreeability. These people are the pool from which our greatest Nobel Laureates & even heroes were once drawn.

    And right now the internet is having a bull market in disagreeability.

    8) This brings us to one of my most controversial theories: Ever since Lindbergh’s attempt to keep the US out of WWII, our institutions have fought against us having ANY living heroes with self-minted credibility.

    This leaves a vacuum filled by acceptable institutional figures.

    9) The lesson learned from Lindbergh appears to be that Mavericks are too dangerous to institutions…and in the case of Lindbergh that made some sense. But what about a John Lennon? Frances Kelsey? Charlie Chaplin? Paul Robeson? Frank Wilkinson? Katharine Hepburn?

    10) Here’s the punchline: There are suddenly way way too many disagreeable individual voices to be found for people trying to escape from the constant cognitive abuse of our institutions, which want our co-dependence on them.

    So something new *has* to happen.

    Here goes…

    Either:

    A) The spell of the GIN breaks and we have lots of real self-minted heroes again.

    B) Disagreeables like Jordan Peterson, Camille Paglia, Nassim Taleb, Douglas Murray, Claire Lehman, etc… all get taken out.

    C) The institutions seat some of the disagreeables.

    CLOSING

    My prediction is that the Gated Institutional Narrative will fail. Exotic measures will be tried to get rid of the strong voices as was done to Jean Seberg.

    And then, at long bloody last, the institutions will seat the disagreeables.

    Here’s to Harvard Professor Nassim Taleb.

    –Eric Weinstein

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 17:23:00 UTC

  • Programming. Football on mute. Steak and Egg Brunch. A bottle of San Pellegrino.

    Programming.

    Football on mute.

    Steak and Egg Brunch.

    A bottle of San Pellegrino.

    Coffee.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 15:33:00 UTC

  • “CURT: WHY DO LIBERTARIANS EAT EACH OTHER?”— Very smart question. 1) Men seek

    –“CURT: WHY DO LIBERTARIANS EAT EACH OTHER?”—

    Very smart question.

    1) Men seek status internally and externally by demonstration of superiority in competitions. So geeks fight verbal battles, from positions of relative safety, in an arena where there are enough of them that such competitions are possible (it’s hard to find other smart people in the real world)

    2) men seek to learn by competition rather than by submission which is why women do better in universities and men do better in competitive forums where they do not have to please but WIN.

    3) Men operate in tribes the way women operate with close friends. They seek hierarchies of peers where they can test their positions. Women seek common ground and then hen peck, while men fight for status and accommodate competitors. These tribes form along class and kin boundaries. Most friends are but three degrees of genetic distance from you.

    Language is commensurable across these differences so we tend to attribute more similarity to our thinking than exists. Our thinking exists to justify (make excuses for) our impulses and our impulses are genetically determined.

    The differences between male brains and female brains is now fairly well understood, and all of these things are understandable just like they are in other animals.

    We just use a lot of words to deny it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-21 11:36:00 UTC