Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THE ERROR OF THE ANCIENTS: TALKING BIZ WAS “OH, SO, BOURGEOISE” Aside from the c

    THE ERROR OF THE ANCIENTS: TALKING BIZ WAS “OH, SO, BOURGEOISE”

    Aside from the conquest of the west by byzantine mysticism, the central problem of western philosophy was thinking and ruling classes avoidance of the centrality of economics. We get philosophy to circumvent the traditional law. And we get science to circumvent the traditional church. And we finally get jewish pseudoscience and puritan outright deceit as ways of circumventing science, economics, an law.

    Economics really doesn’t come into being until smith’s combination of it with ethics, morality, and politics, or turn into a science until menger. Then just as the german scientific revolution is about to kick in, we get the wars, and the postwar era keynes replaces pseudoscience with obscurantist immoral mathematics that menger and smith had sought to avoid. Then the americans kick in – so proud they are to have found a way to destroy civilization faster using stocks as money.

    Lesson? Get your hands dirty.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 13:42:00 UTC

  • “Most of the time I see you post something, and a natural consequence of my pers

    —-“Most of the time I see you post something, and a natural consequence of my personality is to ask “How did you go about this? [but you don’t go into enough detail, and I want to learn, becuase I sense ‘something is not right’ in what I have been taught”. —- A friend

    I heavily edited the end there so that I could quickly get the point across.

    It’s very simple from my end. I can only afford to do so much one on one tutorial so to speak. And when I do, I want to make sure (a) i’m informing others as I’m doing it, rather than just you, and (b) i’m improving my skill by doing it. Otherwise it is a sunk cost for me and I’m very conscious of my time left on this earth and the amount of work I have left to do.

    There are very simple things I talk about, and very complex things.

    I see no problem in explaining western civilization using a very small number of ideas that I think people can understand if they have a bit of reading and education behind them, and if they want to think hard a bit for a while.

    But I think it is very, very, very hard to explain epistemology to people.

    And while it is personally one of my favorite topics because it is one of the hardest philosophers have dealt with, and probably one of my more important insights, I actually don’t think it is possible (or a good use of my time anyway) to get into comparative truth with most people at the epistemological level. I think it’s FINE at the group evolutionary strategy level so that we can differentiate between parasitism and production between peoples. But you know, you just don’t need to know that stuff, and … it’s only useful for the category of problems i’m solving

    All you need to know is that when you justify reasoning, a moral action or legal action, that’s because you are trying to demonstrate honesty, morailty and due diligence – that you are cooperating.

    But when you are talking about discovering a truth rather than adhering to a rule, we cannot ‘justify’ truth statements. We must see if they survive all forms of criticism – we must see if they survive in the battle of ideas. This is how we discover truth candidates.

    We create proofs in math and logic and programming to show that we adhered to the rules. We create rational, moral, and legal justification to show that we adhere to the rules. Why? Because the rules are very simple and well known: the causal density of the rules is fairly low).

    When we conduct scientific inquiry in the social or physical world, the rules (the causal density of reality) is very high. So we the size of the problem is very different, and we must test not our intentions, not the rules we followed, but everyting regardless of our intentions.

    But we evolved as social creatures and we lived cooperative lives that required us to communicate in the language of cooperation, and to discuss things that were actionable and perceivable at human scale.

    So in the 19th century as we developed many tools and techniques and logics, and equations, we had to change our thinking from spending most of our time in the logic of cooperation: justification, to the logic of ‘everything bigger than that’, meaning science.

    In other words, we humans moved from a world of JUSTIFIABLE RULES at human scale, to a world of THEORIES at post-human scale. And frankly we have not evolved for it.

    So we are still in the process of converting people from thinking in simple human scale terms of justifications of those things we can act upon and experience, to participating in a society consisting of things we largely cannot perceive or act upon, except in very subtle ways.

    So the ‘alienation’ we experience in post village, post-tribal, post-familial civilization is caused not only by the movement of people to capital instead of capital to people, and the loss of all those human relationships that allow us to rely upon instinctual justification of our actions, but we live in a market society where there is very little feedback, and we think in concepts of very large scale, and we (almost all of us) lack the education necessary to THINK at large scale sufficiently to understand how we fit into that vast but alienating world.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 13:33:00 UTC

  • JOSLIN ON OBJECTIVISM Objectivism, by not acknowledging deflated truth, uses Ari

    JOSLIN ON OBJECTIVISM

    Objectivism, by not acknowledging deflated truth, uses Aristotelian argumentation as justification for certainty by a “platonic elevation” of reason as a “perfect form”.

    This leads to:

    1) unwarranted certainty in truth claims (a justification for god-speak)

    2) dismissiveness regarding detractors without bearing the burden of proper criticism.

    3) The above two points isolate thinking to criteria defined by a platonic ideal. The result has proven to be a cult-like mentality

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 13:30:00 UTC

  • Q&A: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM, AND HOW DOES SHE COMPARE TO

    Q&A: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM, AND HOW DOES SHE COMPARE TO PROPERTARIANISM

    (final word on the matter so to speak)

    —“Dear Doolittle: What are your thoughts on Ayn Rand and objectivism. What are the similarities between objectivism and propertarianism? What are the differences?Forgive me if you’ve already covered this, I’ve only been following for a few months.”—

    The simple version is that rand provides a literary attack on norms that is framed in economic terms, where nietzche provides a literary attack on norms that is framed by purely aestehtic terms. In my view she is attempting to restate nietzsche for middle class consumption.

    So if you asked me if you wanted to learn some subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means.

    Rand is a LITERARY author trying desperately to produce an analytic philosophy. Where she succeeds is in providing an easier explanation of Nietzche accessible to the contemporary audience through a novelization. Where she fails is in an attempt to join the ranks of analytic philosophers. she succeeds in creating a literary moral philosophy for the moral argument of middle class values, but she fails in producing an ethical, moral, political, and group evolutionary science.

    Rand is a doorway for the young mind, and as such we should respect her as we respect other literary philosophers like plato. But there is no substitute for aristotelianism: science. its just a lot harder to learn science.

    I believe I have unified biology (science), philosophy: ethics and morality(cooperation), economics(production), politics( production of commons), group competitive strategy (evolution), and Law (decidability) and as such, for all intents and purposes, Propertarianism is my term for “Natural Law”, which is a science of cooperation expressed in the science of cooperation: “Law”.

    So in the 19th and early 20th century we saw the battle between egalitarian eugenic truth and transcendence: poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, spencer, hayek, and nietzsche, and authoritarian dysgenic lies: cantor, boaz, marx, freud, frankfurt school (left), mises/rothbard/rand (middle), and Trotsky/Leo Strauss (right) school of accommodation of the underclasses and profiting from them. And we saw the total failure in the 20th century of the anglo model of classical liberalism and the failure of its arguments – accommodation. And we saw the unfortunate failure in the 20th century of the german attempt at the second scientific revolution, and the restoration of europe, by the maturation of the german (hanseatic) civilization.

    What has happened is that since neither could win the arguments, the left has tried to immigrate lower class dependents in, faster than the conservatives can integrate them. And it has worked to a large degree only because the school, state, academy complex has conspired against western civilization: egalitarian, eugenic, and truthful civilization of transcendence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Non Submission

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 12:49:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 12:24:00 UTC

  • THE CURSE OF PURITANISM The french and catholic side of my family, which is fair

    THE CURSE OF PURITANISM

    The french and catholic side of my family, which is fairly large, seems to have done fairly well leading upper working and lower middle class lives, with a sprinkling of professionals across the full spectrum. I wasn’t thrilled around them as a kid because the culture gap between my (unconscious) aristocratic value system from my father’s side of the family was just too large – and many of them still spoke french or accented french.

    My father’s side of the family, which is excessively puritan, seems to have produced a whole host of alcoholics and drug users. (I’m including myself in the ‘problem’ set – although I seem to have made something of myself anyway).

    My sisters and I, very conscious of what alcohol had done, don’t self medicate ‘the autism’. My sister Jean and I, much like our grandmother, have developed a cheerful stoicism instead. My sister does not require ‘chemical assistance’ like I do, and I’ve learned a lot living with her about how she (and I maybe should have) handled it through life simplification and self discipline. My daughter has taken the same route. Unfortunately, I was far too competitive to choose the simple life until I realized the cost to my health.

    Is it that simple: that our protestant mythos is actually harmful to our happiness, just as it has been harmful to our civilization? Has the empiricism and abandonment of the church been right, but the protestant work ethic a mistake?

    I noticed the same thing in Ukraine. The traditional families had fewer commercial achievements, but generally more stable offspring and as long as they could avoid drinking too much (which tends to be caused in russia by the military culture), they seem much more functional – more like our italian families here in the Northeast (the northeast is now dominated by sicilian / southern italian / and irish culture, just like the south is dominated by the scotts irish gene pool. i think the only anglo gene pools left of any purity are in Utah and New Hampshire.

    The germans did it right as well. They still remain a familial and provincial people despite their productivity. Why? They are the only people (west germans) to preserve both stoicism and the family, and ‘the oath'(piety and humilty), and martial duty.

    Those are the requirements for western civilization. The problem is the germans themselves do not understand them scientifically, only spiritually. And that the postwar period has destroyed their aristocracy and opened them up to an over reaction to the nazi era – an era that was CREATED BY anglo puritanism.

    And you see, that is the difference between the sickness of anglo germanic puritanism, and the perfection of our ancient stoicism. Puritanism breeds virtue signaling. It did. Everywhere. And it was this virtue signaling that destroyed western civilization through the english, french and jewish lines.

    The germans almost saved us with a second scientific revolution. A scientific revolution that america was the beneficiary of, not the creator of.

    The question is whether we few, we happy few, can save the germans from themselves.

    And then the germans will save the rest.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 11:54:00 UTC

  • My grandmother, mother, and my sisters all fight dirty. lol My mother is devasta

    My grandmother, mother, and my sisters all fight dirty. lol My mother is devastating at cards, especially bridge. My grandmother cheated like hell. But her tell was that she couldn’t stop giggling, because she alway did it so openly and obviously but rarely was caught.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 11:29:00 UTC

  • A NEW HEATHENS 😉 Welcome to the tribe of people Who have lots of people that th

    A NEW HEATHENS 😉

    Welcome to the tribe of people

    Who have lots of people

    that they loved one day

    …..cast away

    Just because we check the guns at the door

    Doesn’t mean our brains will change

    ….from hand grenades

    You’re lookin’ on the predator standin’ next to you

    You’re lookin’ on the murderer standin’ next to you

    You’re lookin’ on the plunderer standin’ next to you

    …..But after all I’ve said,

    …..please don’t forget

    All these men are heathens,

    …..take it slow

    Wait for them to ask you what you know

    Please don’t make any sudden moves

    Please don’t take any virtue cues

    They don’t deal with parasites very well

    They say free riders have a certain smell

    Oh Yeah, trust issues, not to mention

    They say they can smell your intentions

    All these men are heathens,

    …..take it slow

    Wait for them to ask you what you know

    Please don’t make any sudden moves

    Please don’t take any virtue cues

    Why’d you come,

    you knew you should have stayed

    I tried to warn you just to stay away

    And now they’re inside ready to bust

    It looks like you might not be one of us

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 11:28:00 UTC

  • MUST-READ: ON SPECTRUM OF AGENCY DEMONSTRATED BY USE OF TESTIMONY BY BILL JOSLIN

    MUST-READ: ON SPECTRUM OF AGENCY DEMONSTRATED BY USE OF TESTIMONY BY BILL JOSLIN

    —-“Thoughts that might be worth exploring ->

    Qualification to acquire membership in a class based on demonstrated agency affords commensurability in assessing worthiness.

    Demonstrate the degree one lives by their own agency dictates which class they belong (vertically) regardless of horizontal class (much talk with Joel on this in January)

    Testimonialism forces one to “demonstrate due diligence in speaking truthfully”. But this can also be stated as “demonstrating the degree of agency (due diligence) one has invested in the speech act (truthfulness).

    This adds a new “moral” level to testimonialism – in that one can communicate a testimonial truth which they have invested only the time it took to memorize it without any personal agency in developing it(low agency)…. one can speak a testimonial truth another developed but has invested their agency into understanding it (mid agency)… or one can speak a testimonial proof which one has developed on their own (the proof stands as a demonstration of their agency).(posts on cognitive self ownership)”—– Bill Joslin

    Now lets look at that last paragraph again:

    This adds a new “moral” level to testimonialism –

    LOW AGENCY

    One can communicate a testimonial truth which they have invested only the time it took to memorize it without any personal agency in developing it….

    or

    MIDDLE AGENCY

    One can speak a testimonial truth another developed but has invested their agency into understanding it…

    or

    AGENCY

    One can speak a testimonial proof which one has developed on their own (the proof stands as a demonstration of their agency).(posts on cognitive self ownership)

    Agency of the youth, the adult, and the wise.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 11:05:00 UTC

  • IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM” What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”? is

    IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM”

    What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”?

    ism

    ˈizəm/

    noun informal

    “a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain of preferences: typically a political ideology, philosophy, institutional framework, economic model, or an artistic movement. isms separate the categories that are defined by the constant relations of the physical world from the inconstant categories of the preferential world that we call the sciences. A science does not account for preferences in inputs or outputs, but an ‘ism, as a means of decidability between preferences must.”

    So one must know the ism’s to debate them. To know the isms requires one know the categories, values, methods of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. So in systems of preferences, ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species.

    When referring to ‘isms’ we can use other ‘isms’ to reinterpret them – using a different set of categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability.

    if we are confused by one another’s arguments we can clarify our arguments by increasing the precision of our arguments, by referring directly to categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability.

    When one criticizes the use of ism’s one is criticizing a taxonomic reference to a set of particulars: categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability, one does little more than (a) demonstrate one’s ignorance of the topic, (b) demonstrate one’s arrogance from a position of ignorance, (c) attempt to steal from others by demanding that they pay the cost of educating you, or tolerate the existence of your theft, and the consequences it might have if your attempted theft is interpreted by others as an inability to construct a counter argument. In other words, arguments from ignorance are a form of blackmail. And those who conduct blackmail are those we wish to punish for their crimes.

    The ethical, moral, and non-criminal means of requesting information is this: “I don’t understand, would you mind answering this question: what do you mean when you say….”

    To which the other will respond either with reciprocal ethical and moral and non-criminal means, by saying “Ok.(attempted clarification)”, or some variation on “I can’t afford to make that investment now, but here is where you may look do it yourself”, or “I just don’t have the time or inclination to invest in that question at the moment”.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Non Submission

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 10:53:00 UTC