Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • DEFINING EXISTENCE VERSUS EXPERIENCE Existence = Persistence Experience = Non-Pe

    DEFINING EXISTENCE VERSUS EXPERIENCE

    Existence = Persistence

    Experience = Non-Persistence

    1) We must construct experiences in real time from a combination of brain structure (Vitruvianism), Memory(prior Perception and Association), and Perception(senses), and Association (the measure of which we have no means yet other than IQ to determine).

    2) Existence persists independent of experience.

    3) Some patterns (categories, relations, values) will always be experienced by human minds.

    4) Human minds are indifferent in perception to the degree patterns are indifferently identified.

    5) Cooperation is possible because of indifference in perception, indifference in incentives (acquisitions), and indifference in mirroring (sympathy and empathy).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 13:48:00 UTC

  • HOW REAL ARE YOU? Can you even speak without idealism, mysticism and conflation?

    HOW REAL ARE YOU?

    Can you even speak without idealism, mysticism and conflation? You probably don’t know the extent of your infection by the language of deception.

    Why? Speaking existentially removes the illusion of ad therefore pretense of, knowledge.

    There isn’t a big difference between “feels” and “ideals”.

    The difference is between reals and *everything else* including ideals and feels.

    || Measurement > Real > Analogy > Ideal > Mysticism > Lie.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 13:07:00 UTC

  • Nein mehr Merkel: Für Deutschland, Für Europa, Für die westliche Zivilisation #C

    Nein mehr Merkel: Für Deutschland, Für Europa, Für die westliche Zivilisation

    #Conservative #Libertarian #newright #Deutschland

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 13:05:00 UTC

  • A CIVIL SOCIETY: GESTURES No, I don’t find you attractive or interesting or even

    A CIVIL SOCIETY: GESTURES

    No, I don’t find you attractive or interesting or even want to have a conversation. I’m just CIVIL person who was RAISED WELL, with the undrestanding that casual recognition, a smile, and “hello” in passing is the civic equivalent of a handshake – the entire purpose of which is to demonstrate goodwill and remove uncertainty, fear, and status signaling. And in general, by doing so, make the world a more relaxing and pleasant place.

    Unfortunately, evangelists, yankee peddlers, immigrants from the mediterranean, and immigrants from the third world culture of the ‘Bazaar’, lack Germanic decency in public.

    We used, and those of us with good manners, still use “Excuse me Sir/Madam”, or the preposition “I’m sorry…but…”

    Unfortunately we abandoned the duel for those who insult us; we abandoned the practice of berating or beating the crass and opportunistic for their ill manners; beating the underclass for even approaching their betters; and we have, always lacked the Eastern European and Asian “Crossed Ams” symbol for “No/Stop” that informs both the recipient of the gesture to cease and desist immediately, and requests all men within visual and auditory distance to come to one’s defense and and punish the abuser if he does not immediately break contact.

    I have found that “Fuck Off” works in every country in the world that i’ve visited. And I still have no idea why I am never the target of interests of malcontents. But I would much prefer to return to an era where you could visit a provider of goods, services, and information, but such providers were prohibited from seeking attention, interruption, time, effort, or money from us in the commons.

    End the commercialization of the commons. End tolerance for approach, interruption, attention, time, effort, and cost. And restore civil discourse of recognition, testimony of harmlessness (“hi, hello”) in those commons.

    And in doing so restore some of the lost trust from our civilization.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 12:51:00 UTC

  • THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CIVIL ORDER by Joel Davis I would define a ‘Civil Order’ a

    THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CIVIL ORDER

    by Joel Davis

    I would define a ‘Civil Order’ as the result of successfully negotiated, reciprocal social construction.

    In order to successfully negotiate a condition of interpersonal reciprocity we must have incentive to:

    1) reciprocally participate (suppression of parasitism),

    2) trust that exchange shall be honoured (insurance) and;

    3) commensurable means of reference and calculation (truthful speech and operational law).

    Mindfulness practiced correctly enables one to better conceive of the externalities of their behaviour and the actual and/or potential social rewards and punishments which accrue from these externalities.

    Thus, as Mindfulness generates greater rationality in the practitioner, it generates greater capacity to calculate reciprocity, therefore generating greater capacity to successfully negotiate reciprocity.

    (curt says: “perfection”. That is how it is done.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 12:19:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY, SNOBBERY, VIRTUE Does not require much money. In fact, if you can p

    ARISTOCRACY, SNOBBERY, VIRTUE

    Does not require much money. In fact, if you can purchase time in exchange for decreasing ownership of property that’s better for you. It requires only that you are extremely judicious in your expenditures. It requires only that you ‘be a man’: in control of yourself.

    Be fit enough to fight no matter your age.

    Eat well enough to stay fit enough to fight.

    Own nothing not both Excellent, Beautiful, and Useful.

    Be well dressed and well groomed enough to demonstrate your discipline and taste.

    Accumulate cash, investments, manners, worthy friends, knowledge, and experiences.

    Accumulate competitive knowledge.

    Accumulate wealth. Three or more men living in a single residence, will accumulate enough wealth. If you are all of similar economic strategy, you will merely improve one another. Remember that a pack of men is only as strong as its weakest member. So be intolerant.

    Do not ‘try’ to get rich. Getting rich is a simple as (a) avoiding all credit, (b) not having a starter marriage, (c) saving half of what you earn (d) buying a house, only for cash, only to have enough children, or only for investment and renting out.

    Yes, we want women. Women peak at 19-22. But don’t ‘lose the crazy’ until 33-35. Men peak between 35 and 55. Find a women 7-15 years your junior – if not twenty, have five or six children from a position of power. Try to get at least two if not three sons, by frequent sex during peak ovulation. Sons who you have time for are an asset.

    Women are more plentiful the better shape you are in, the better groomed you are, and the wealthier you are. Girlfriends are cheapest, but must be rotated every year. Women can be rented by online dating, and rented for sex. There is no reason to own one until you have the assets to afford one.

    Yes, as a man who finds life without a woman as my best friend difficult if not impossible, I understand. But I also understand how much I have lost in my divorces. And I understand that the state, like the church, is organized to prey upon men.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 11:10:00 UTC

  • Ran into two of my distant kinfolk the other day. The Breton kin. Same height. S

    Ran into two of my distant kinfolk the other day. The Breton kin. Same height. Same coloring. Very similar features. We could easily be mistaken for brothers. But what was the difference? they had me by at least a hundred pounds.

    WTF is modernity doing to my people?

    We need two innovations in biological warfare: something that kills all rice plants and something that kills all sugar plants. ‘Cause the state has too much interest in the consequences of rice and sugar.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 10:48:00 UTC

  • SNOBBERY I am not a snob in denial. I’m just a f-cking snob. Ok? I not only admi

    SNOBBERY

    I am not a snob in denial. I’m just a f-cking snob. Ok? I not only admit it – I’m proud of it. I studied fine art, history, science and philosophy, just so I could MASTER snobbery. The only difference is I prefer to use snobbery to ADVANCE my people rather than masturbate by virtue signaling. Snobbery is merely the search for excellence, and the frequent exercise of disapproval of alternatives to excellence.

    Now if I can master Ascetic Snobbery I’m going to be even happier. ‘Cause the whole Bourgeois thing has just gotten totally out of hand….

    The purpose of economic excellence, like military and aesthetic excellence is to defeat other tribes and to increase your tribe’s position above the rest in the race against the red queen. And then let the laggards try to catch up through imitation.

    Snobbery is a virtue. 😉

    It’s just the art of Truth, Excellence, Goodness, and Beauty.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 10:44:00 UTC

  • THE COSTS OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER The transfer of knowledge is dependent upon at l

    THE COSTS OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

    The transfer of knowledge is dependent upon at least ten “supply demand” curves. Such that the contract (exchange) of knowledge is a function of the costs involved in an exchange. In other words, some communication is low cost and some is worthwhile, and some is very costly, and some is prohibitively costly, and some is simply impossible no matter what is done. So transfer of knowledge is one of the most complex human endeavors in no small part because of high causal density with diverse means of increasing costs.

    |METHOD| Suggest > Communicate(illustrate) > Explain > Teach > Train(Repetition) > Saturate(Immersion)

    ie: Cost—>+

    |LEARNING| Learns through inference (145+) < Learns through Suggestion(135+) < Learns through Illustration (125+) < Learns through Explanation (115+) < Learns through Teaching (105+) < Learns through Training (95+) < Learns through Immersion (85+) < Learning challenged (85-)

    ie: Cost—>+

    |ABILITY| Same Sigma > .5 Sigma > 1 Sigma(helpful) > 1.5 Sigma > 2 Sigma (Difficult)> 2.5 Sigma > 3 Sigma(~Impossible) > 3.5 Sigma > 4 Sigma(~Inconceivable)

    ie: Cost—>+

    |CONTEXT| Enemies(resisting cooperation) > Negotiation (exploring cooperation) > Discovery (cooperation) > Pedagogy (education) > Court/Jury(dispute resolution)

    ie: Cost (Consequence) —>+

    |MODEL| Impulsive(emotive) > Intuitionistic(sympathetic) > Reasonable(verbal)* > Logical-Rational(internally consistent)* > Scientific(Externally consistent) > Ratio-Scientific (Internal and external) > Testimonial (Complete)

    ie: Cost—>+

    |PRIORS| Prior Technical Knowledge < Prior Specific Knowledge* < Prior General Knowledge < Limited General Knowledge

    ie: Cost—>+

    |CONTENT| Identical < Near Identical < Analogistic < Novel < Counter Intuitive < Counter Investment < Counter Status(signal) Investment

    ie: Cost—>+

    |TRUST| Suggestibility(False Positive) > Honest-Reasonable(Exchange Positive) > “Dunning Kruger(False Negative)”

    ie: Cost—>+

    |STRATEGY| Seeking to Understand > Seeking to Disagree > Seeking to Falsify > Seeking to Deny* > Denial.

    ie: Cost—>+

    |HONESTY| Intellectual honesty > Intellectual skepticism > Intellectual Dishonesty*.

    ie: Cost—>+

    This (large) set of causal relations, illustrates the difficulty in the range of communication problems Suggesting > Communicating(illustrate) > Explaining > Teaching > Training(Repetition). And illustrates why it’s simply false to say that if one cannot understand it, one cannot explain it. Instead, it is, that all other causal axis being equal, one should be able to explain a phenomenon to a peer. But as the difference in peerage increases the problem of communication even if all participants are intellectually honest.

    Please notice the technique used, involves extensive use of deflation (reduction to first causes), use of operational (not ideal) definitions, in series(further deflating), with cost attributions. So that while we may not compute cardinality, we can calculate ordinality by triangulation. This is one of the many methods we use to limit the ability to engage in ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, and deceit.

    While I am one of the most accessible people working today, I find that the vast majority of the time, the inability to communicate ideas is almost always a function of cost of doing so. And limited knowledge, signal-anchoring, intellectual dishonesty, and dunning kruger effects, are most obvious. Why? Because either you can comprehend and refute an argument, or you can say “I do not comprehend it, and can levy no opinion.”

    There is a very great difference between the sophism of rationalism and the requirements for empirical science(external correspondence), and the requirements for ratio empirical science (add internal coherence), and the requirement for complete science (add operational, reasonable-choice, moral-reciprocal, scope completeness and limits).

    There is a reason why Rationalism is used in hermeneutic interpretation LEGISLATION and SCRIPTURE and why Ratio-empiricism is used in physical science, and why Testimony (although often poorly unarticulated in the study of law) requires operational testimony, test of the rational man, test of reciprocity, and test of full accounting and limits. Not the least of which is that words carry little decidability but property carries with it conflict and decidability.

    Why? Because the courts determine the facts (testimony and truthfulness), and then apply tests of reasonableness, reciprocity, externality, and then test them against the legislation – which is not meant to be, or practiced, as true or just, but simply the ‘rules’ of decidability in matters of conflict.

    And from this we can learn a great deal about the difference between argument in court where our frauds and deceptions will provide us with punishment, and the jury decides whether we err or deceive, and debate, where the jury decides whether we err or deceive, and petty argument where we seek to learn(test), or fraud(win), or educate(help).

    There are very few intellectually honest people in the world. There are fewer that can learn and make use of multi-dimensional (causally dense) methods of thought. And fewer who are willing to pay the high cost of attempting to articulate and teach those causally dense methods of thought that are counter to signal, norm, intuition and discipline.

    But the influence of reason(falsification), of natural law(reciprocity), of mathematics (the science of measurement), of science(empiricism-correspondence), and (hopefully, in the near future, Testimonialism) has been profound – and responsible for the great leaps in human mastery of the self, of nature, and of the universe.

    |TRUTH| {Generation 1: Heroism > Oath ‘Reporting’ > Property} > {Generation 2: Falsification > Natural Law > Mathematics} > {Generation 3: The Abrahamic Dark Age of Conflation} > {Generation 4: Empiricism > Economics > Testimonialism}

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 10:38:00 UTC

  • Women’s minds, including emotions, evolved, and remain, attenuated for the purpo

    Women’s minds, including emotions, evolved, and remain, attenuated for the purposes of bearing and raising generations of children: when young, when fertile, when mother, when grandmother. But what does this mean? It means that upon appeal to intuition in matters interpersonal, social, and political, that women’s intuition supplies a bias – and men’s does not supply that bias. Why? Because men change physically, but women change not only physically but mentally in puberty – and that change continues throughout life: hyperattenuation. While female precociousness, verbality, attention seeking, manipulation, care-taking are present, the increase in psychological illness, and female dominance in psychological illness, is caused largely (a) this hyperattenuation, and (b) lack of mindfulness training that is typically provided by the child-caring, familial, tribal, and especially masculine limits placed on their behavior by the social condition. It’s quite evident from travelling the world that women act as demand-generators in social orders without which men would not compete for women’s attention, but would compete against men for women as property.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 06:48:00 UTC