Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • POSTMODERN, RELIGIOUS, IDEAL, AND OCCULT SPEECH CAN BE DEFLATED AND THE DECEPTIO

    POSTMODERN, RELIGIOUS, IDEAL, AND OCCULT SPEECH CAN BE DEFLATED AND THE DECEPTIONS EXPOSED.

    ***And there is nothing I know of that cannot be communicated scientifically. What we all desperately try to do is frame and load to impress others or to lie to ourselves.***

    —“a knowing by being identical with that which is known.”—

    I don’t understand this sentence as other than a fictionalism.

    Let me see if I can deflate it:

    (a) The word “being” is a filler-word for conflating experience and action, that just like ‘thing’ or ‘stuff’, means the speaker is ignorant of what he speaks or obscuring of what he speaks. The verb to-be means ‘exists as’. So “being” can mean “doing ( something )”, or “experiencing (something)” or “doing (something) and experiencing (something)”.

    (b) I think you mean “pretending (modeling) and sympathizing with a character in order to experience sympathetic feelings or environment”. This is how we imitate all sorts of behaviors.

    (c) I think you are conflating knowing(in memory true or false) and experiencing(at present or not).

    (d) I think that we all collect identities (“I feel, think, and act like a person who thinks feels and acts by these criteria”) both as tools, as goals in pursuit of self image, as standards of measurement, and as self deceptions in lieu of achievement – in order to lie to ourselves about our status.

    (e) I think you are describing nothing other than the usually literary model of Transcendence > Monomyth > Archetype > Plot > Virtues > Assets (property-in-toto) > Status. In other words, role playing a character. When we know that the archetypes map to personality types.

    (f) I think that we can deflate all identities into attempts at acquisition both real and illusory.

    (g) I think there is nothing that you can experience that you cannot communicate without deceit (pretence, fictionalism, lying). And I think attempts to say otherwise are attempts to preserve self deceptions.

    In other words, I have not yet found anything that cannot be converted into scientific language. I have only found people making attempts to preserve deceptions.

    This is what psychologist get paid for: what lie do we tell ourselves and how can we correct it by eliminating the trauma or feeling that prevents us from avoiding it.

    SO TO THOSE WHO CLAIM THEY PURSUE TRUTH AND WISDOM:

    Why is it you need to preserve the lies?

    Because the only answer is, that you are weak or cowardly.

    “In other words, LARPING”

    (How is that for a challenge?)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 18:14:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 17:05:00 UTC

  • THE PAIN OF UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS You know guys, once you take upon yourself the

    THE PAIN OF UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS

    You know guys, once you take upon yourself the mission to exterminate falsehood as a means of saving your people and their genome from deception, and then preserving western civilization, with our deflationary truth, high trust and high velocity adaptation, you’re going to have to watch many of your favorite sacred cows die.

    How did Bacon, Copernicus and Newton feel? How did Darwin and Maxwell feel?

    Just because you value something profoundly does not mean it is not harmful to you and your people.

    Man up, so to speak.

    You were not right about anything except the value of western civilization. You were just a little less wrong than everyone else that had been deceived.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 15:06:00 UTC

  • Well, that’s just it, isn’t it? 1 – The individual only needs to understand his

    Well, that’s just it, isn’t it?

    1 – The individual only needs to understand his choice is preferable.(person)

    2 – Those cooperating only need to understand their choices are good.(group)

    3 – Those deciding conflicts only need to understand whether the conflict is decidable. (judge)

    Now people conflate the possible, the preferable, the good, and the true, as if they’re synonyms, without considering the implied grammar.

    A preference isn’t true. It’s just a preference and possible or not.

    A good isn’t true, it’s just preferable, and good, and possible or not.

    A truth isn’t preferable or good, it’s just true.

    Yet another example of the problem of conflation rather than operational grammar and definitions.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 15:00:00 UTC

  • Any man who disrespects the priesthood is justified in his skepticism. Any man w

    Any man who disrespects the priesthood is justified in his skepticism. Any man who disrespects the martial monarchy and martial nobility, or the field marshal has no idea how difficult it is to hold those positions and the sacrifice that those positions demand, and how cheap the luxury of those positions, and how necessary the rewards in order to entice men into retaining them.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 09:17:00 UTC

  • COMPETITION VS STUDY —“Because intense disagreement and subsequent argumentati

    COMPETITION VS STUDY

    —“Because intense disagreement and subsequent argumentation generally results in me learning faster.”— Joel Davis

    (The secret to basically everything. Competition in creases velocity and produces more accurate result than study.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 09:03:00 UTC

  • RESEARCH: PRIEST VS GLADIATOR At one point I would have agreed with Adam Smith,

    RESEARCH: PRIEST VS GLADIATOR

    At one point I would have agreed with Adam Smith, because I believed research could be performed by slow individual contemplation of the written word, by the individual, at human scale – scientific research was therefore akin to scriptural study.

    But like Popper, I have come to understand that once we passed the scale of research that was possible in achievable human time frames, achievable by individuals, and instead required a MARKET in which we contributed to research in parallel, I understood that one might say he has a theory and does NOT state it is true, but instead, asks for criticism, so that together with others in the market for truth, we contribute confirmation, criticism, and additional information, and together, iteratively improve the theory.

    So smith argues as a priest, and I advocate arguing as a gladiator: I claim the top of the hill, and seek a man better than I to fell me. For I wish only to be led by better men. And the only test of superiority is defeat in a test that exists in the real world (operational language).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 09:01:00 UTC

  • the reason they liked duels was because it stopped impassioned ‘fights in the mo

    the reason they liked duels was because it stopped impassioned ‘fights in the moment’, in an era where everyone always had at least a knife and often was physically strong as only farmers are, while agreeing to fight and preserving ‘face’ – but then allowing time for cooler heads to prevail, and apologies to be issued. The material problem with the duel was the use of champions (professionals), and then using ‘constructed’ challenges to commit no better than murder by the use of champions. It was and remains, easy to fix.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 07:25:00 UTC

  • Facts about (Facebook) friends by Tyler Cowen 1. For the population of the avera

    Facts about (Facebook) friends

    by Tyler Cowen

    1. For the population of the average county, 62.8% of FB friends live within 100 miles.

    2. Over distances of less than 200 miles, the elasticity of friends to distance is about – 2.0, and about – 1.2 for distances greater than 200 miles.

    3. Conditional on distance, social connectedness is significantly stronger within state lines.

    4. “Counties with a higher social capital index have less geographically concentrated social networks.”

    5. Social connectedness predicts trade flows, even after controlling for distance, and it also predicts patent citations.

    That is all from a new NBER working paper by Bailey, Cao, Kuchler, Stroebel, and Wong. Here is an ungated version.

    (CURT: Not true for me at all.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 07:24:00 UTC

  • if you are in the realm of philosophy, cause questions exist about the universe,

    if you are in the realm of philosophy, cause questions exist about the universe, not why questions. Why questions are limited to the incentives of men. Only religion posits such deceptive questions as a parlor game to overload the mind through verbal conflation of the material and the behavioral.

    you see. there is no way out of the box. it’s just lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 07:20:00 UTC