Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • (FEELING OF AWE: I feel it again. I’m struck by just how CLOSE Hayek came. He st

    (FEELING OF AWE: I feel it again. I’m struck by just how CLOSE Hayek came. He started with the mind. He correctly identified information as the model. He correctly identified Law as social science.

    He was SO CLOSE. So close that in retrospect we can see he was right as far as he went.

    He just couldn’t assemble the pieces DESPITE being so close an associate of Popper and Mises.

    And Popper came so CLOSE also. Mises had a piece, but he was too confused by his righteousness.

    These people were at the END of the enlightenment, so that they could look at what had failed. But they just couldn’t put it together.

    They might have if it had not been for Keynes finding a pseudoscientific excuse for Britain to inflate away her war costs, and for the democratic socialists to fund their scheme.

    But the answer was being discovered in mathematics, computer science, and physics. And It seems that no one (at least until I stumbled on it) put it all together.

    Thank you Rafe Champion for putting the seed in my head so many years ago. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-06 02:59:00 UTC

  • #NewRight: If the left can destroy rule of law to implement their lies, we can r

    #NewRight: If the left can destroy rule of law to implement their lies, we can restore law to implement truthfulness. Constitution=Science.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-06 02:34:00 UTC

  • #NewRight: Houses for tribes(races) or classes (castes). Morality, Family, Produ

    #NewRight: Houses for tribes(races) or classes (castes). Morality, Family, Production, Organization(finance and law), Order(military).

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-06 02:33:00 UTC

  • #NewRight understands that we can produce a monopoly democracy caste society, or

    #NewRight understands that we can produce a monopoly democracy caste society, or a federation of tribes – creating a market for commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-06 02:29:00 UTC

  • The OldRight had to lie. The #NewRight doesn’t, because we don’t assume monopoly

    The OldRight had to lie. The #NewRight doesn’t, because we don’t assume monopoly majoritarian democracy. We restore the houses to classes.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-06 02:28:00 UTC

  • The Old Right assumed continuation of monopoly, majoritarian democracy. The #New

    The Old Right assumed continuation of monopoly, majoritarian democracy. The #NewRight returns houses for classes(castes) or tribes(federal).

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-06 02:27:00 UTC

  • ( You know, when most of us see something well designed we ‘notice it’ and feel

    ( You know, when most of us see something well designed we ‘notice it’ and feel ‘pleasure’ in it. But we tend to ignore what is not well designed. We accommodate it. But some of us (aspies and ocd’s) don’t ever accommodate the imperfect. It’s more that we feel relaxation at the perfect, not pleasure. Instead we feel the absence of displeasure. I look at everything, and I see what’s ‘wrong’ with it – meaning asymmetric or atonal or disordered.

    I look at the building next to me and I see that one of the windows is bricked in, and it ruins the aesthetic of an otherwise beautiful 19th century building. It bothers me that there are salmon curtains in the window of this other building. I notice that the lines of that car were a compromise not a solution. I notice that the brick joinery on the curb was done lazily. I notice facial asymmetries, walking, and body language patterns. And I notice all of it as constant unending stream. And worse I tend to see the whole history and future of these things at the same time as a rushing set of images. And yes it’s freaking annoying. But it’s also useful.

    This ‘seeing the bad’ makes me ‘look for the good’. And I usually find some good to compliment in almost everyone. But, despite seeing a world of imperfect things, I don’t find it ‘dishonest’ to say ‘I like this person’, or ‘he is a good person’, and at the same time say ‘he’s terribly stupid in this way’ or ‘he has very bad taste in this context’. Any more than I notice my own facial asymmetries, my own ‘stiff’ body language, my own weakness in the left side, my own stupidities in one way or another. I can love my dog, my friends, my family, my mate and still know their failings. I don’t see a contradiction in any of that. It just is what it is.

    What I have been told quite frequently here in Ukraine, is that it’s dishonest – lying – to seek the optimistic path even if I see all these negatives. And this is an interesting insight into the intuitionism and moralism of Ukrainians – and Russians – that we don’t experience in the west: we work with the good we have. We tolerate that which we can tolerate. We ignore what we can ignore. And we operate from an optimistic if not utopian set of judgements – or at least, some of us do. I certainly do. Because if I thought of or worried about the imperfections I would be incapable of action. Worse, if I was ‘honest’ in all that I SAW people would fucking hate me. lol. And neither they, nor I, would be better off. So, while germans are empirical, British are moral, and Americans are utopian, Ukrainians are intuitionistic, call themselves ‘honest’, and in fact, are not trustworthy whatsoever except to their closest friends. Russians are equally intuitionistic, but nihilistic, call themselves honest, and are only trustworthy if they have no other choice. And this is borne out in all the data on trustworthiness, language use in negotiations, and visible corruption.

    Hence we must humor people from other cultures because as intuitionistic they cannot be reasoned with. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-05 08:22:00 UTC

  • ( Hello Victor. 🙂 )

    ( Hello Victor. 🙂 )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-05 07:35:00 UTC

  • Sacred rituals (church/temple in particular) reward us with the pack response (s

    Sacred rituals (church/temple in particular) reward us with the pack response (spirituality/elation) and inclusive signals in exchange for learning the skill of suppression of our impulses.

    The most aggressive and demanding ritual is that of islam’s multitude of demands and daily repetitions, the most intellectually demanding judaism, the least demanding and most disorganized christianity, the most spiritual buddhism, the most ritualistic and perhaps best Japanese co-religions of shinto and buddhism, the most difficult and most beneficial stoicism combined with aristotelian empiricism (law and science).

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-05 04:34:00 UTC

  • Well, existentially, a “Number” CAN only refer to a “name”. That name can refer

    Well, existentially, a “Number” CAN only refer to a “name”. That name can refer to the base number set (in base ten, that’s 0-9), or it can refer to a positional number ( say, 12,345 ) or it can refer to a FUNCTION (say .9, 1/2, or the square root of 2, or any other non-reducible function.)

    So the only ‘numbers’ that can exist are the natural numbers. The rest of the so called ‘numbers’ must refer to functions (a sequence of operations).

    We can however, speak in terms of ‘meaning’ not ‘truth’. This is what mathematicians do. They speak in meaning. But we can translate ‘meaning’ into ‘truth’ (parsimonious existential necessity) for all mathematical statements. And as such, we can restate mathematics in truthful, existential, natural language.

    But this would be burdensome. Because the reason that mathematicians use ‘meaning’ is to make the best use of symbols to save both state, and the possible operations upon that state. In other words, just as we use analogies (meaning) to simplify our effort at communication, mathematicians use symbols to simplify the difficulty in saving and transforming ratios.

    Now, once we embark upon pragmatism (analogy, meaning) and not names (names) we get into the problem error, conflation, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit.

    But as long as we can still translate meaning into truthfulness we can test our statements (series of symbols) against error conflation, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit. But then if we communicate by meaning, one either takes responsibility for the recipient’s interpretation, or one is exporting the cost of testing our statements to the other parties.

    In other words, if we take a discount on communication, we force the cost of falsification upon others. Which may be beneficial for both sides. On the other hand, if one commits error, conflation, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion or deceit, then how do we know whether which of those that one engaged in?

    Especially when many thinkers have seeded humanity with vast costly falsehoods by speaking meaningfully but not truthfully.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-05-04 14:04:00 UTC