Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Untitled

    http://buchanan.org/blog/putin-preeminent-statesman-times-126734http://buchanan.org/blog/putin-preeminent-statesman-times-126734

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 00:34:00 UTC

  • ( Of course Ghost in the Shell is a dead tennis ball at the box office. You can

    ( Of course Ghost in the Shell is a dead tennis ball at the box office. You can tell from the casting how a movie will do. Scar-Jo cant carry a lead. We saw that two years ago. Any director who would cast her, (or Ben Affleck as Batman, or Theron as Aeon Flux), is going to fail – because you cant misunderstand the material so much that you cast the wrong person and still produce a solid visual narrative.. These are not character, or voice roles. They are body language and cameral shot roles. The enemies have personalities. The hero is a proxy for the audience. If they can’t carry the movie with a full face mask, and no lines they can’t carry the movie.

    When I was studying film, we were told that you must be able to shoot a commercial, a trailer, a porn flick, a movie starring children and pets, an action movie, and a drama, or at least know the difference in how to cast, block, shoot, and edit them all. I swear to god, most of the stuff I see that fails has to do with poor casting, or poor script. The rest of the production can be managed from the camera or in editing. Why did scarlett jo get the part? hollywood loves to try to make (((family))) serve as actors – and they can’t except in comedy. The (((Family))) has no heroism in its bones and can’t pull it off no matter what they do. Everyone overreaches. In every political field. sigh. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 20:09:00 UTC

  • CURT: WILL YOU [Answer, Advise, Inspire] ME [or our Group], IF WE WANT TO [Learn

    CURT: WILL YOU [Answer, Advise, Inspire] ME [or our Group], IF WE WANT TO [Learn, Plan, Take Action]?

    Um. I it’s my job. I am accessible, I am free for the asking. Just ask. I answer questions all day long. I love doing it. I love enthusiasm.

    Now, as for Interviews? I won’t do interviews unless you’re ready to ask me specific questions on a specific topic. I don’t care if the conversation veers in various directions once we get there. But good questions are evidence of your ability to interview me. I don’t want or need to promote my work really. I wont just ‘explain propertarianism’ to people any longer. It’s too much for you, your audience, and to tedious for me. 😉 See? Easy. )

    Respect my time. I am not a potential chat buddy. I have plenty of friends. Thanks. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 19:18:00 UTC

  • “One of the better things you’ve written is that our Western culture sanctions t

    —“One of the better things you’ve written is that our Western culture sanctions the bravest and boldest of us to use our egotism to serve the group. We have developed what Kant called “sociable anti-socialibility’. We like the bad boy who is redeemed by fighting for a good cause”—Josh Jeppson

    .

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 18:07:00 UTC

  • West, Russia, China We play ooda-loops and always have (mobility). Russia plays

    West, Russia, China

    We play ooda-loops and always have (mobility). Russia plays wait for weakness (aggressive opportunism). china plays accumulate, delay and deceive until winning is impossible against them (aggressive defense).

    That mobility as a team, opportunism but weakness in maneuver, and absorbing damage while accumulating strength reflect military strategies – it should not surprise us that their practice of ‘truth’ follows the same strategy, or that their systems of government follow the same strategy.

    I would note that german and catholic europe are just living in denial.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 18:02:00 UTC

  • I know that in the global intellectual pool of people who deeply understand econ

    I know that in the global intellectual pool of people who deeply understand economics, there are those of us who understand the Chinese strategy to destroy the USA, and how successful it will be. I know that there is nothing our government can do to stop it. I know that Russia is counting on it. I know that we are dead. What I don’t understand is just letting it happen rather than managing our decline. Democracy is the evil that prevents it. Russia and china can adapt. We no longer can adapt.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 16:58:00 UTC

  • STUFF I WISH I COULD HAVE SAID: —“Propertarianism is ridiculously easy to summ

    STUFF I WISH I COULD HAVE SAID:

    —“Propertarianism is ridiculously easy to summarize: a system [of terms and grammar] that makes what subtle social investments are linguistically possible to make commensurable, commensurable.

    The further simplification of even that: a system of cooperation through mutual understanding.

    The further simplification of even that: “How we can get what we both want.”

    The further simplification of even that: “How we can help each other.”—Josh Jeppson

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 16:35:00 UTC

  • (math) —“Curt: Someone said:”The closest you can get to objective truth is mat

    (math)

    —“Curt: Someone said:”The closest you can get to objective truth is maths, which is apriori, analytic and not empirical whatsoever” Is this a lie? I’m having difficulties understanding that since maths is axiomatic.”—

    This is one of the great intellectual problems that we must deal with. And it’s as old as the Greeks at least. It is better to say, that if you can describe something in *certain mathematical equations* then you have the lowest chance of misinterpretation of description.

    However, as we see in statistics daily, economics weekly, and physics monthly, mathematics is a tool limited to describing certain things. It does not for example, describe causality or sequence. And it can be misused more easily than used.

    Mathematics depends upon constant categories and constant relations, at scale independence. And so it is good for expression of deterministic phenomenon. However, in economics and in sentience, we have only inconstant categories, and fungible relations. We can think of it this way: the physical world can’t decide to change categories and relations; we can cause changes in the physical world if we want at some cost or other. The economic world can change categories and relations, but at some cost and effort; and the sentient world can change categories and relations with only exposure to information, and very near zero cost to the individual, but at very, very, very high cost to groups.

    This does not mean we cannot make true statements about economics at some degree of precision. Just as we cannot make true statements about subatomic world yet beyond some degree of precision. The reason being that at the subatomic level, and in the economic and sentient levels, the causal density is so high and categorical variation so high that mathematics has proven little use in direct prediction of consequences – and almost none at all. At the sentient level we have no way at all of expressing in mathematical terms the information necessary to change state.

    What we have seen is that there is a point at which we can model sufficient causal density of systems that we can observe intermediary phenomenon (patterns) that assist us in defining limits of consequent patterns (ends we want to observe). So we may not be able to predict the location of molecules of gas, prices of a good at a location, or the information necessary to form an idea. But that does not mean that we cannot make truthful (parsimonious and descriptive) statements about those phenomenon.

    And this is the current limit of our understanding of what we may be able to do with mathematics. In other words, while there may be an unmeasurable and unpredictable set of end states due to causal density and rapid heuristics that change our actions or associations, it appears that whatever limits humans are limited by, just as whatever limits the universe is limited by, cause patterns that appear, and these patterns may in fact assist us in predicting end states.

    The problem, as usual, will be at some point, the information necessary to perform a calculation is equal to reality itself.

    So, the response to your friend is that math is good at measuring simple things, that does not mean all things that we need measure are simple.

    Math works because it is trivial. But we have, until the 1800’s only used it to measure trivial things.

    We are just beginning to touch upon complicated things.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 15:48:00 UTC

  • QUARTERLY REPEAT: CURT, WHAT PHILOSOPHERS ARE WORTH READING REALLY? NONE. BUT IF

    QUARTERLY REPEAT: CURT, WHAT PHILOSOPHERS ARE WORTH READING REALLY? NONE. BUT IF YOU MUST….

    —“Curt: Which philosophers are worth reading? I take it Hume, Newton and Aristotle are among the ones who avoided engaging in falsehoods?— Alex

    You know, to be honest, I don’t think much of philosophers other than to get a feel for how the history of thought evolved into science.

    I would suggest reading about philosophers rather than philosophers themselves. I would rather someone read the SEP than any given philosopher. (Seriously. Encyclopedias prevent you from anchoring. )

    That said, it is hard to say no to:

    1 – Aristotle/Aurelius,

    2 – Machiavelli/Durkheim/Pareto/Hayek,

    3 – Bacon/Locke/Smith/Hume/Jefferson,

    4 – Galileo/Newton/Darwin/Maxwell.

    5 – The Greek tragedies, Dostoyevsky, Checkov, and Nietzche.

    6 – The Greek and Roman myths, the whole corpus of Christiandom’s myths that survived christianity as folk myths of the hearth. And perhaps most importantly homer, and the entire european (including Russian) great myths that evolved from that set of myths.

    And whichever of my followers had the genius bit to add, that it is only through tragedy that we can communicate to all classes, is something that I think bears knowing.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 15:19:00 UTC

  • EXPLAINING PROPERTARIANISM TO MOM My mom. 80th birthday yesterday. Says to me ov

    EXPLAINING PROPERTARIANISM TO MOM

    My mom. 80th birthday yesterday. Says to me over coffee, that her friends can’t understand my work. And that she can’t understand my work. So I go into this little speech to try to make it accessible to those with life experience and last-century educations.

    She says that philosophy classes ruined religion for her. I said, that’s because philosophy, like religion, like science, claims that they’re methodologically ‘right’ – and that they have a monopoly on understanding. Rather than that they are methods of answering questions with different amounts of information, and different degrees of skill, and different degrees of ability.

    She asks me about precision.

    So I explain first how most of us want utility, and we need to find others to test our ideas, and to get cooperation, and to organize by rallying.

    Then how we might use science when we have a lot of information, history when we have a little less, philosophy when we have less information and can only rely on non-contradiction and internal consistency, and religion when we have exhausted our information and can only rely upon the wisdom of the past – ideas that have survived the test of centuries. That’s because with religion we need not require possibility, existence, consistency, or evidence, just wisdom. With philosophy we need not require possibility or existence or evidence, just consistency. With history we need not require causality, just evidence of existential possibility. And with science we require causality.

    So we have developed languages that suit the amount of information that we have. And what we must watch for, and be cautious of, is the misuse of method given the information available – because that is how people lie.

    Now, because people lie, we also have the opposite of those things that help us find ideas, get cooperation, and organize by rallying. Those things are mathematics, science, the limits of human beings, and the law of cooperation.

    Now, everyone wants to think about possibilities, and rally people to their cause, and to obtain information in support of, and confirmation of their cause as ‘not immoral’.

    But very few people want to think about how to test those things against ignorance, error, bias, and lies.

    So to tie this back to what I do, I work in the negative: the law. How to measure (math), tell the truth( science), and to test cooperation (natural law).

    In other words, I write about the laws of measurement, truth, and cooperation, as a defense against ignorance, error, bias, and lies.

    And this is a specialized field. A technical field. And as people with experience in teaching, they know what STEM disciplines are mathematics, science(physics, chemistry, biology, sentience), technology/engineering, economics/finance/accounting/law. These are means of transformation, measurement, and decidability independent of our perceptions. They measure what we cannot feel and experience.

    And there are non-stem disciplines: arts, religion, philosophy, politics, history, literature, education, psychology, sociology, social work, business, and its applications. These are not methods of measurement but of meaning – what we can feel and experience.

    Now I wouldn’t expect ‘friends’ to understand advanced math, science, tech, engineering, econ, finance, or law terminology. I don’t know why people would expect to understand what I write about.

    They won’t.

    But what is fascinating about humans is our continued faith that we have some ability to grasp the moral, right and true, and immoral, wrong and false, at SOME SCALE BEYOND THEIR PERCEPTION any more than we can make any other judgements without tools at any scale beyond that of our senses.

    And that is what STEM (and law) disciplines do: understand, measure, and decide that which is beyond our perceptions and ability to judge by personal experience.

    (Or, to tease my mother – it’s a man thing. Don’t worry about it. lol.)

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 14:03:00 UTC