Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • “Is analytic philosophy superior to the continental philosophies – such as exist

    —“Is analytic philosophy superior to the continental philosophies – such as existentialism, phenomenology, Thomism?”– A Friend

    Um. I think deflationary analysis (science) is superior to conflationary analysis (continental philosophy).

    Continental philosophy bridges religion and science.

    Analytic philosophy isolates religion from the sciences and joins the sciences.

    (or more historically, analytic philosophy arose out of the enlightenment and law, and continental philosophy rose out of the enlightenment and religion. )

    Continental philosophy conflates just as monotheistic religions conflated. Analytic philosophy deflates.

    Analytic philosophy relies on literature for the experience

    and then we analyze the literature using different fields.

    So put in those terms, the ‘scientific tradition’ asks that we know more different tools of measurement, while the continental school tries to use our experiences as the standard of measurement.

    As far as I know, the continental method has been a waste of time. As far as I know the analytic method has been overly distracted by the use of logic (sets and language) for answers (That were not found by the way).

    WHereas science is in the process of discovering OPERATIONS rather than sets.

    The basis of all ‘truth’ is the possibility of what operations allow change in state given any set of conditions.

    Hence all true names are operational descriptions.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 12:07:00 UTC

  • WHY BEAR THE NOT-YET-HUMAN IN OUR MIDST? Sovereignty requires and visa versa age

    WHY BEAR THE NOT-YET-HUMAN IN OUR MIDST?

    Sovereignty requires and visa versa agency. Sovereignty and Agency are two sides of the same coin. Via positiva agency, and via negativa sovereignty.

    Transcendence merely refers to the evolutionary construction of Sovereignty and Agency.

    Stoicism provides internal agency, and Natural Law provides external agency.

    So, why would any group of people desire or require anything other than Internal Agency (Stoicism) and External Agency (Natural Law)?

    Well there are two reasons?

    1 – One is insufficiently human to possess internal agency even if provided with external agency.

    2 – One desires to falsify and increase the returns on his genetic inferiority at the expense of others.

    So the question is, why do we need a universal religion, or a universal government, and instead why not separate demonstrable humans from demonstrable sub-humans?

    What purpose do ceremonies of transition to adulthood serve?

    One cannot take an oath if one lack agency to comprehend and exercise it.

    Why must others pay the continuous and expanding cost of the sub-human in their midst?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 11:52:00 UTC

  • WHY A UNIVERSAL RELIGION? Well, if you (a) ban falsehood, and (b) provide a non-

    WHY A UNIVERSAL RELIGION?

    Well, if you (a) ban falsehood, and (b) provide a non-false ‘religion’, what will occur? Do you need a universal religion?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 11:45:00 UTC

  • Teaching reading and mathematics is hard. Teaching stoicism is no harder. And of

    Teaching reading and mathematics is hard. Teaching stoicism is no harder. And of the three of them I”m pretty sure it’s the most important. Otherwise ‘continous therapy’ of religion is necessary

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 10:47:00 UTC

  • CHRISTIAN ETHICS IN FIVE RULES (IN ORDER) 1) Do nothing unto others that you wou

    CHRISTIAN ETHICS IN FIVE RULES (IN ORDER)

    1) Do nothing unto others that you would not have done unto you.

    2) Do unto others, only what they desire done unto them.

    3) Exhaust forgiveness for that which they do unto you, before retaliating.

    4) Retaliate only to the minimum extent necessary to prevent harms to you and others – do not seek revenge.

    5) Extirpate all hatred from your heart.

    This is the optimum strategy humans can adopt in order to construct cooperation despite differences.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 10:29:00 UTC

  • PUT A FORK IN IT. RELIGION IS BAKED. I’m gonna call religion ‘baked’ and put a f

    PUT A FORK IN IT. RELIGION IS BAKED.

    I’m gonna call religion ‘baked’ and put a fork in it. It’s fully decidable now. So, that means, it took, from the early spring of 2015 to the late spring of 2017 for me to solve it. And that makes religion the most difficult subject I’ve had to solve among the disciplines and institutions. Truth was nowhere near as hard because mathematicians and computer scientists had done so much work, even if logicians really ended up in nonsense land. Of the three disciplines, only computer science refrained from idealism (platonism). But I was able to combine the work of a century of ‘thinkers’ to make testimonial truth possible.

    OK. So the remaining work is just to finish the constitution (application of propertarianism, testimonialism, … etc) and then the really, really …. unpleasant work, is producing the examples of the more subtle concepts in testimonialism into an algorithm (set of steps) that are sufficient for the courts.

    I don’t think I need to do that to publish. I think getting the ideas together is one job. putting the ‘courses’ together another job. And surrounding it with literary history in the Robert Greene model is last.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 10:19:00 UTC

  • THE CONFLATION IN FREUD’S PSEUDOSCIENCE by Daniel Gurpide Nietzsche, in that str

    THE CONFLATION IN FREUD’S PSEUDOSCIENCE

    by Daniel Gurpide

    Nietzsche, in that strand of his work that may be referred to as ‘Zarathustrian prayer,’ deliberately proposed a ‘myth.’

    The Nietzschean ‘myth’ does not pretend to be ‘objective.’ Nietzsche explicitly acknowledges the arbitrariness of the ‘myth’ he formulates.

    In contrast, Freud conflates Abrahamic ‘myth’ and Kantian rationalism and ends up producing pseudo-science (psycho-analysis).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 10:03:00 UTC

  • PETERSON, HAIDT, AND DOOLITTLE (AND TALEB) AND THE NEED FOR RELIGION AS CONTINUO

    PETERSON, HAIDT, AND DOOLITTLE (AND TALEB) AND THE NEED FOR RELIGION AS CONTINUOUS THERAPY DUE TO OUR LOSS OF STOICISM

    (profound) (read this)

    I’d venture that Peterson’s current with psychology and if you were to read both his work (therapy) and Haidt’s work (morality), haidt does not retreat into the literary (religion). And so you sort of get the same message against postmodernism from both Haidt(Morality) and Peterson(Psychology), and me (Decidability). The difference is between personal, political, and legal.

    Now I agree that appealing to myth and literature is a way of CREATING A DISTANCE BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND HIS EXPERIENCES SO THAT HE CAN ASSESS THEM.

    Theraputically, that is what myth and literature allow you to do: look at yourself(feelings) and ‘norms’ (via ancient myths still living) in a depersonalized way.

    And having depersonalized YOURSELF and depersonalized SOCIETY AND OTHERS your rational (human) mind can be used to defeat (reprogram) the animal and reptilian mind.

    I mean. But that’s operationally what is going on.

    It’s what talk therapy tries to do through one-on-one safety.

    It’s what exposure therapy tries to do through social (mentor) safety.

    It’s what literary analysis tries to do through social (religious) therapy.

    It’s exactly what anti-depressants allow you to do.

    That’s exactly what hallucinogens allow you to do.

    I mean, all of it it. All of religion is just THERAPY. It’s therapy that’s only necessary because of ignorance, poor teaching, and our lack of continuous reinforcement from the family and tribe in a vast, alienating, impossible-to-calculate division of perception, knowledge, and labor, using an information system increasingly dependent upon nothing except REJECTION and PRICES.

    The problem is achieving enough detachment that you can reprogram (assign new weights) to memories and relations without at the same time reinforcing the weights of existing traumas.

    I mean. It’s not even scientifically difficult.

    What’s difficult is the near universal ignorance among us that this is what we’re doing, why we’re doing it by the different means, and why it works, and why its necessary:

    WE LACK SUFFICIENT TRAINING (STOICISM) SO THAT WE REQUIRE CONTINUOUS THERAPY TO COMPENSATE.

    (this should be one of the most profound things you’ve read in your life)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 09:55:00 UTC

  • The difference between Chinese and European myths, both of which are deflationar

    The difference between Chinese and European myths, both of which are deflationary, is the same as with our languages: Sinic High-Context Low-Precision, and European Low-Context High-Precision.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 09:22:00 UTC

  • THE MEANING OF “ARISTOCRACY” by Daniel Gurpide The term ‘aristocracy’ derives fr

    THE MEANING OF “ARISTOCRACY”

    by Daniel Gurpide

    The term ‘aristocracy’ derives from what the ancient Greeks called ‘areté’, the quest for excellence: the act of living up to one’s full potential.

    This tragic urge to self-overcoming (transcendence) may be identified as the only way man and his presence in the world may be ennobled.

    The original Indo-European speakers defined themselves as ‘Aryans’. At the geographical extremes of the great migration, we find Arya in Sanskrit and Indo-Iranian, and Aire in the language of the Irish Celts—out of which probably arose Eire: ‘Irish.’ The root *ar- signifies ‘noble.’

    Since any ‘aristocracy’, if it wants to survive nowadays, should recover and transfigure the founding myths of Indo-European culture, when it comes to specifying its particular virtues, such features as the following might be listed: an eminently aristocratic conception of the human individual; the importance of honour (‘shame’ rather than ‘sin’); a heroic attitude towards life’s challenges; the exaltation and sacralisation of the world, beauty, the body, strength, and health; the rejection of any ‘worlds beyond’; and the inseparability of morality and aesthetics.

    The highest value for an aristocrat would lie not in a form of ‘justice’ whose purpose is essentially interpreted as flattening the social order in the name of equality, but in all that may allow man to surpass himself. Since to consider the implications of life’s basic framework as unjust would be palpably absurd, such classic antitheses as noble vs. base, courageous vs. cowardly, honourable vs. dishonourable, beautiful vs. deformed, sick vs. healthy . . . come to replace the antitheses based on the concept of sin: good vs. evil, humble vs. vainglorious, submissive vs. proud, weak vs. arrogant, modest vs. boastful .

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 09:10:00 UTC