Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • IT”S NOT SO MUCH WHITE AND DARK, AS SUCCESS AND FAILURE AT NEOTONY. The european

    IT”S NOT SO MUCH WHITE AND DARK, AS SUCCESS AND FAILURE AT NEOTONY.

    The european west and the han/japanese/koreans look very different but we have far more in common than we do with the steppe/desert/tundra peoples who are less developed than east and west.

    I mean, fundamentally, caucasians branch just into two groups: the more evolved Neotonic northern with flatter faces and smaller noses and lighter hair, and the less evolved less Neotonic southern with pointier faces and bigger noses and darker hair.

    I mean, the real problem if you want to get down to it, is that the east and west succeeded in neoteny and the center did not, for the simple reason that there were too many tribes in conflict, and the area was more suitable to the preservation of pastoralism, so the desert, steppe, and tundra people didn’t have as much time to go through the farming and commercial phases, shrink their underclasses, and succeed in neotonic evolutoin.

    I mean. They’re more aggressive. It’s simple.

    Aggression and large numbers that live poor quality lives is a competitive advantage against less aggressive with smaller numbers that live better lives.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 23:27:00 UTC

  • The american system of law differs a great deal from the continental in that we

    The american system of law differs a great deal from the continental in that we have almost no input limitations on our actions in exchange for requiring courts to decide conflict on outputs. The european system seeks heavy limitation on actions in order to minimize conflicts.

    The american system is superior for the use of truth testing, since it is very difficult to regulate truthful speech going in, other than to test due diligence when conflict arises.

    For this reason I would expect the continental (more restrictive because of high blame avoidance) and the russian (absurdly low trust) to be more resistant to the use of the common law to test the truthfulness of speech than under the anglo system.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 22:52:00 UTC

  • ME? NO. NOT LIKE RAND OR ROTHBARD. NO. I don’t view it anything like Rand. I vie

    ME? NO. NOT LIKE RAND OR ROTHBARD. NO.

    I don’t view it anything like Rand. I view it like aristotle, Lock, Smith, Hume, Darwin and Nietzsche. The fact that she also relies upon them but advocates low trust individualistic jewish separatism via reason, while I advocate high trust SOVEREIGN production of commons via reason, is perhaps similar to someone who’s read rand. But my influences are really Artificial Intelligence > Popper > Hayek > Hoppe and the philosophy of mathematics more than anything else. My influences are science, economics, law, and mathematics.

    Simple people think in terms of value, reason, and choice. I think in terms of measurement, calculability and decidability. That’s a very big difference.

    The competitive advantage of the west is the use of truth to produce commons better, faster, and cheaper than any other people even imagine possible.

    The competitive advantage of judaism, is to extract the maximum possible from other people’s commons and concentrate it in the tribe, returning as little or nothing to the commons.

    So no. I’m the OPPOSITE of rand and rothbard and marx.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 22:38:00 UTC

  • APHORISM: THE COMPETITION BETWEEN TRUTH AND MEANING. In the competitive market f

    APHORISM: THE COMPETITION BETWEEN TRUTH AND MEANING.

    In the competitive market for the positive of meaning by the use of literature and the negative of falsehood by the use of law, we hope that only truth survives the conflict.

    Law tells us not what to do, but what not to. Why? because there is no way to test literature other than with law.

    This puts some of us in the position of mother: the teller of tales, and gossip, and recipes.

    It’ puts some of us in the position of father: the limits of our words, displays, and deeds.

    It is more pleasant to give away meaning, than it is to take away falsehood.

    Some of us must police truth just as we police services and goods.

    Some of us must be fathers.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 22:35:00 UTC

  • THE BIG QUESTION FOR PETERSON, THAT HARRIS COULDN”T FIGURE OUT HOW TO ASK —“Pe

    THE BIG QUESTION FOR PETERSON, THAT HARRIS COULDN”T FIGURE OUT HOW TO ASK

    —“Peterson manages to inspire me without coming across as foolishly optimistic or unrealistic in expectation. That’s really quite an accomplishment.”—

    (That is because you already agree with him. – Who *doesn’t* agree with him? Why? I read all the same research that he does. I just read very different LITERATURE from that which he does. )

    RESOLVING HARRIS’ QUESTION

    I want to resolve the same question Harris does, but I am capable of asking in more articulately than Harris.

    THE QUESTION FOR JORDAN PETERSON

    “Jordan, given the portfolio of Myth, Literature, History, and Science and Tort Law (record of existential disputes), why does one have to preserve political conflation (combining myth, law, history), choice conflation (the useful, the preferable, the good, and the true) and fictionalism (idealism, supernaturalism, occultism)?

    In other words WHY DO YOU NEED TO PRESERVE LYING when it is by conflation and fictionalism that the west was destroyed in the ancient world; medieval man was trapped in illiteracy and superstition for a dark age – ended by literacy and restoration of our ancient thought; four great civilizations have been destroyed by islam and descended into ignorance; jews were unable to build a territory and institutions, and despite being literate contributed nothing good to human history, and in the modern era, kant, the french and the cosmopolitans, the marxists and the postmodernists have done nothing but attempt to produce a series of counter-enlightenments preventing the completion of the ‘restoration’ (enlightenment) by its extension to the social, political, and juridical sciences?

    Why do we need to circumvent reason, and rely upon lying, when the secret by which the west in the black sea, aegean, Mediterranean, north-baltic sea (hansa), atlantic, and seven-seas eras, dragged mankind kicking and screaming out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, disease, and tyranny by the use of Martial Epistemology (Truth), Sovereignty, Heroism, and Markets?

    Why isn’t the battle between good and evil, that between the use of truth in pagan aristocracy and the use of lies in monotheistic underclass socialism?

    Isn’t the battle that we have had for 6000 years, between (a) the revolutionary invention of truth, paternalism, sovereignty, markets, and transcendence of the limits of mind and body, and (b) the counter-revolution against it and the preservation of the primitive? Isn’t the enlightenment and the ongoing counter-enlightemnent just a continuation of the cycle between truth and deceit?

    How is history reducible to anything other than two rare peoples, each at opposite ends of the eurasian continent, (europe and china) inventing reason, and everyone between them retaliating against them in a series of cycles and counter-cycles?

    How is it even conscionable to perpetuate that which was invented and has served as the primary means by which civilization has been reversed, regressed?

    I mean. How is it in any way morally conscionable to advocate the preservation of the greatest cause of murder, suffering, destruction, poverty, ignorance, and dysgenia, – even greater than the black plague – when there is no demonstrable need to do so other than to appeal to the baser elements of man?

    What is the difference between marketing the dream state by saturation in endorphins by hacking man’s submission-to-the-pack instinct, and saturating those endorphins by the use of opium?

    What is the difference between the British sale of opium to the chinese, and the state, academy, and church’s sale of the opium of endorphins to the west?

    Why aren’t constantine and justinian, the middle eastern purveyors of the same thing to the west that the British were to the east?

    What moral justification can you give for what appears to be nothing more than one of the greatest crimes, if not THE greatest crimes, in history: the invention of zoroastrianism-abrahamism? The use of conflation to overload reason as a counter-revolution AGAINST truth and reason?

    THERE ISN’T ANY MORAL JUSTIFICATION FOR IT, IS THERE?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 22:26:00 UTC

  • ON THE PRETENSE OF MORALITY AS COVER FOR PARASITISM Social orders consist of a v

    ON THE PRETENSE OF MORALITY AS COVER FOR PARASITISM

    Social orders consist of a variety of institutions. I am going through the sum total of human thought AND human institutions, and attempting to discover the methods of eliminating deceit from the commons.

    Now, it SOUNDS to me like Brian cannot grasp the difference between telling people SOMTHING TO DO and think, versus telling people what they CANNOT speak, display and act upon in the commons because it spreads falsehood.

    Now, I already know why Brian is doing that kind of counter-signaling, and I expect all people to counter-signal when they are attached to a preferred falsehood, just as a corrupt politician, a corrupt public intellectual, a corrupt academic, a corrupt businessman, or any other corrupt person justifies his parasitism upon other people through use of deception.

    So the fact that people want to preserve their falsehoods, whether to preserve a false self image, or to preserve the ability to obtain false signals by virtue signaling others, or to preserve allies, or to preserve intellectual malinvestments, or to preserve allies political and cultural, or to preserve rents, is somewhat immaterial

    If you are engaging in falsehood as a means of obtaining something via the commons then it is just another form of fraud.

    If you think that you can construct a set of virtues (values, positives) that are non-parasitic and advance some reproductive strategy that is good. If you can construct a set of virtues (values, positives) that advance a different reproductive strategy (signal strategy), that is also non-parasitic, that’s also good. And literary structure under the transcendent monomyth, the archetypes, the pagan virtue portfolios, allows all of that to occur – that’s just the logic and science of literature.

    but there is no more reason to tolerate the ‘sales’ of parasitic and false marketing of parasitic and false values, than there is any other form of conspiracy to do harm either public or private.

    And I don’t think there exists a criticism that’s survivable, unless you say that ‘i don’t care, I want to preserve a means of fraud and parasitism upon the achievements and potential of those who refrain from parasitism and fraud.”

    I understand why folks would resist, but you know, truth is what it is: things are true and moral or they are untrue and immoral.

    it’s not complicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 21:53:00 UTC

  • RESTORING THE PRIVATE CIVIC, NORMATIVE, COMPETITIVE, ORDER. Well, Yes, I am inte

    RESTORING THE PRIVATE CIVIC, NORMATIVE, COMPETITIVE, ORDER.

    Well, Yes, I am intentionally screwing with people by asking the question under the guise of church. Because I suspected the reaction I got. And therefore people are so anchored that it is impossible.

    2) If instead, I said, “If schools, in which we invest heavily in intergenerational activities, providing a service we cannot do without (education), shortened their school hours, but expanded their functions, so that they had a weekly ‘feast’ (food) after which they taught weekly family ‘lessons’ using the great myths and virtues in the form of literary interpretation; and served broader civic functions like fitness, registries of birth, property, and death; Credit Union with zero interest consumer loans; and armory of the militia; would we be able to restore the civic society with many such ‘shareholder organizations’? Secondly, could we repurpose our many declining and abandoned churches, and related property, for this purpose, to preserve their architecture?”

    In other words, can we recreate the civic society out of multiple private institutions, that are necessary because they provide necessary functions?

    Is this a possible institutional solution(normative government)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 21:29:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 14:18:00 UTC

  • Gossip is a means of overloading the information system with opinions, bias, and

    Gossip is a means of overloading the information system with opinions, bias, and falsehood. ie: Propaganda.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 14:18:00 UTC

  • A WHOLE LOT OF WHAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT PHILOSOPHY IN ONE SERIES OF DEF

    A WHOLE LOT OF WHAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT PHILOSOPHY IN ONE SERIES OF DEFINITIONS

    Definitions:

    Reasoning: the method comparing categories, relations, and values within the limits of our perception and cognition.

    Identity: the production of categories, relations and values that eliminate conflation producing the possibility of comparison and choice.

    Mathematics: the use of one to one correspondence between a unit of measure and a category as a measure of constant relations at scale independence, otherwise beyond the limits of perception and cognition. (units)

    Logic: the use of categories, relations and values to test the internal consistency of verbal propositions. (sets)

    Operationalism: (Recipes/Algorithms/Functions): The use of physically possible operations in order to produce names of categories, relations, and values that are externally correspondent, existentially possible, and sequentially possible. (existence)

    Rational Choice: given a sequence of existentially possible operations, wherein each change in state caused by each operation provides an opportunity for choice, it is in the rational interest of the actor to make such a choice.

    Morality (reciprocity): the test of reciprocity. given an opportunity to make a choice, one chooses that which does not violate the demand for reciprocity that preserves the incentive to cooperate and avoids providing an incentive to retaliate.

    Full Accounting (scope): the test of full accounting and limits such that cherry picking and suggestion (full accounting), and overloading and fictionalism (limits) cannot be used for the purpose of deception.

    Science: the production of instrumentation by which we can measure categories, relations and values beyond the limits of our perception and cognition, thereby reducing that which is beyond perception to that which is within perception, and comparable via reason.

    Philosophy: an internally consistent set of categories, relations and values for the purpose of decidability within a domain, incorporating science, mathematics, logic, operations, rational choice, reciprocity, and full accounting.

    Truth: an internally consistent set of categories, relations, and values, for the purpose of decidability independent of domain, incorporating science, mathematics, logic, operations, rational choice, reciprocity, and full accounting.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-14 13:57:00 UTC