Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • IVAN ILAKOVAC on the demarkation between moral literature and mythology. Ivan Il

    IVAN ILAKOVAC on the demarkation between moral literature and mythology.

    Ivan Ilakovac: —“I tend to place a division mark between moral literature and mythology in existence of characters. Particularity of their experience, at least for me, warranties that the writer is just trying to explore and present one of many possible variations of human experience, and then, value judgment that may or may not proceed from that experience are just particular to that experience or that character, precisely: that reproductive strategy and its biases. (I could work more on this division now that I have a clear spectrum.)”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 11:24:00 UTC

  • We must act. But our actions are LIMITED. It’s informationally less expensive to

    We must act. But our actions are LIMITED. It’s informationally less expensive to remember the minority of what works than the majority of what doesn’t. Just as it’s informaitonally less expensive to remember bits and pieces of relations than to store a full record of stimuli. Our brains had to develop with the rate of electro chemical processing possible in wet systems. I mean we take about 90-100 watts to operate, and that’s pretty cheap really given how expensive brains are.

    limits exist. The fact that we categorize ‘that which is not limited but actionable” is just a discounted means of storing the information we need to act with.

    So limits to actions exist. The world exists as limits to actions. We categorize these limits to action as positives (connections) because positive connections are actionable, and we associate emotions with them so that we are excited to pursue what is actionable and beneficial.

    This is a very simple system in practice. We just use billions of very cheap neurons to do it.

    so when one say x doesn’t exist (without saying how it exists) that’s false. limits exist. if the limits exist the inverse exists. a unicorn exists the way jesus exists: as a memory of a common narrative that can be verified by reciprocal agreement on the symbol we communicate when we use the term.

    Unicorns exist like words exist, like stories exist, like jesus and aristotole exist. Except that the limits we place on unicorns are different from the limits we place on aristotle and jesus.

    I can believe that jesus and aristotle existed, and that aristotle composed the ethics, and jesus gave the sermon on the mount.

    but I cannot believe that unicorns exist given my current understanding of the meaning of the term.

    nature exists. man can bring objects into existence. men can bring ideas for objects into existence. men can bring ideas in to existence by recreating them each time he desires to. The question is merley a verbalism. Do we bring a unicorn into existence as the imaginry experience? Or do we bring about an imaginary experience by the reconstruction of the symbol we call ‘unicorn’?

    The answer is that the experience exists, not the unicorn.

    The word unicorn exists. The imaginary memory exist. The experience of activating that memory exists. Does the unicorn exist?

    IT exists the same way that the square root of two exists: as a verbal convenience. Neitehr the squre of two or the unicorn exists.

    The difference is we might some day be able to technologically bring a unicorn into existence (actually, we can already make the horns exist by planting horn buds). But as yet, they do not exist in that THEY CANNOT PERSIST WITHOUT MAN’S IMAGINATION TO EXPERIENCE THEM

    Conflation of existence (persistence) with existence (memory) is either error or deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 11:22:00 UTC

  • Bill Joslin: —“In looking deeper into the Anglo-American alliance and those wh

    Bill Joslin:

    —“In looking deeper into the Anglo-American alliance and those who planted the seeds for that possibility – many a consipracy are confirmed

    HOWEVER, when one takes in a FULL ACCOUNTING of costs and benefits AND their motivations it stops being a fist waging “those bastards” narrative. I owe this progression to Kevin Cole.

    Anger at the elites for their historical shenanigans, from the elite perspectice, slots in a the underclass resistence to being domensticated. From the underclass prespective (conspiracy theory) them arguing for their reproductive (liberty, safety) and socio-economic position. The conflicting narratives are valuable in a market place of narratives.

    The conclusion for me – underclasses need to be refranchised(made to feel apart of the tye whole as a necessary component) and shenanigans by elites destroys trust (and thus why the underclasses are disenfranchised.)

    If we got on the same page, which is what “weaving the fabric of the english polity” was about (forming the strategies you outline above) we could work toward a common goal. But backroom deals and institutional leveraging for social change destroyed trust.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 10:49:00 UTC

  • ANGLOS TRIED TO CREATE THE LAW OF INFORMATION?

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/02/02/truth-natural-law-physical-law/HAVE ANGLOS TRIED TO CREATE THE LAW OF INFORMATION?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 10:46:00 UTC

  • DOES ANY ANGLO PHILOSOPHY ACTUALLY EXIST? The German philosophers conflate every

    DOES ANY ANGLO PHILOSOPHY ACTUALLY EXIST?

    The German philosophers conflate everything. Their only difference from levantine mystics is that they use platonism, pseudorationalism instead of mysticism and theology. And the jewish philosophers avoided deism and used pseudorationalism, pseudolegalism, and pseudoscience – trying to one-up the Germans. (Really, that’s what actually happened.)

    The anglo model asks that we deflate: law of nature (physical laws), informational laws (logic), natural laws (cooperation), history, literature, mythology, and theology – and we ignore the dreams.

    To this extent, no anglo PHILOSOPHY exists – or has in a very long time. Anglos practice the Deflationary Law of Information. Possibly for no other reason than their long history with the common law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 10:43:00 UTC

  • Law of Nature, Natural Law, Moral Literature, Mythology, Spirituality, & Dreams

    Law of Nature, Natural Law, Moral Literature, Mythology, Spirituality, & Dreams.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 10:38:00 UTC

  • WORTH REPEATING (important concepts)

    WORTH REPEATING

    (important concepts)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 10:34:00 UTC

  • BREXIT FUTURES (from the uk mirror) The USA+UK collectively preserve the interna

    BREXIT FUTURES

    (from the uk mirror)

    The USA+UK collectively preserve the international system of defense, law, finance, and trade that was created over 500 years by the British Empire.

    In retrospect, Britain’s attempt to suppress german expansion on the continent rather than to cede the continent to Germany, and retain the international system of finance and trade all seems to have been a mistake.

    And that the Continued ANGLO civilization, the restoration of empire by military and financial and trade means (rather than direct rule) is a superior solution for all english speaking countries.

    The UK/US combination still constitutes the majority military, legal, and financial (and even scientific and empirical) function in the world economy. And that is why the stock (usa) and bond (uk) markets favor both countries.

    In the long term our interests are more aligned than the UK’s with Europe.

    Together we have ruled Europe for a century and all it has done is create world wars and allow Europe to commit demographic, economic, and political suicide.

    So its perhaps time to recognize the errors of our past. And for the naval powers (UK/USA) and the island cultures (USA/CANADA/AUSTRALIA/NEW ZEALAND) to let the continental go their way.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 10:28:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) James, if this is a forum for discussion, then it’s a value. Wh

    (from elsewhere)

    James, if this is a forum for discussion, then it’s a value. Which would require posting both sides of the debate. If this is a form for you to express your frustrations then it is no longer anything to do with theory policy and philosophy, but simply just emotional. Just create an “I hate trump” forum and put it there. But at present you’re not acting any differently from the alt-right-green-frog folks except your posting pseudo-rational propaganda instead of openly irrational green-frog cartoons.

    You have energy and a particular gift. And if you employ it honestly then you can make a contribution to the world.

    I’m honest about my work and my bias. (and yes, the fact that The Clinton Foundation defrauded me of $2M they said they would pay me for developing the greenhouse-gas measurement software, after we rescued their efforts in India at Microsoft’s request; and the fact that I have direct experience with these people – including Murdoch’s wife – might color my judgement a bit. These are ‘bad’ immoral, people for whom lying is simply a justifiable means of achieving their ends.)

    Anger destroys honesty. Half truths are lies. Half arguments are just half truths.

    Hence why I argue in the manner that I do: the only ‘good’ is exchange. The only ‘moral’ is non-imposition of costs.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 07:17:00 UTC

  • Yes. And they are working on a similar issue of expression the consequences of c

    Yes. And they are working on a similar issue of expression the consequences of constant relations as superior to set operations (which they, and I ) clearly agree are problematic (and in my opinion, one of the reasons for 20th c pseudoscience, and the failure of 20thc philosophy to contribute anything meaningful.)

    My view goes something like this (and I don’t know if its been touched on in math before):

    Properties > Operations > “Categories”(incl math cat) > Sets (sets of categories) > (repeat iteratively vs decompose recursively).

    This is a language of constant mathematical relations that in my opinion is a reflection of verbal (theoretical) semi-constant relations expressed by the universal epistemelogical process:

    Free association > pattern > wayfinding > hypothesis > theory > Law (repeat iteratively vs decompose recursively).

    In other words mathematics functions as a test of constant relations, and that is the best that we can do until we discover the underlying operations.

    Moreover, think of it like this: We evolved to think at human scale, and just as we use mathematics to describe relations about which we do not know the causal operations, to explore the GRANULAR, we also can engage in combinatorial ‘categories’ at higher and higher levels of abstraction in order to imagine (envision) greater and greater patterns. So that between math for reduction, and language for expansion, we are starting from the conceptual middle (human scale) and working toward the finite (descriptive) and the infinite (imaginary) using the tools of higher precisino (math, operations) and the tools of opportunity generation (langauge, free assocaiaion).

    By the processs of imaginatino and reduction we attempt to construct that which is OPERATIONALLY POSSIBLE at HUMAN SCALE.

    I think this is the most profound way that I know how to unify the range of human thought into a single explanatory narrative.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-16 10:41:00 UTC