Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THINKING OF BERNARD WILLIAMS (PHILOSOPHER) : THE MIND OF ARTISTS, ENTREPRENEURS,

    THINKING OF BERNARD WILLIAMS (PHILOSOPHER) : THE MIND OF ARTISTS, ENTREPRENEURS, AND JURISTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHILOSOPHY.

    You know, there is a natural conflict between judges, entrepreneurs, and artists. A judge makes no proactive statements, only prohibitionary. Artists and entrepreneurs envision possibilities, and rarely issue prohibitions.

    But it is somewhat of a difference between the sculptors of stone and of clay.

    A sculptor of clay creates from either skeleton or nothing, A sculptor of stone eliminates all that is not that which he desires. Working with clay is much more forgiving than working with stone. The sculptor of stone works with what exists, and the sculptor of clay works with what yet may be. The Judge works with what exists, and the artist and entrepreneur work what may be.

    Together they produce the same art.

    I agree with Williams that scientism is tedious for the artist, of limited use to the entrepreneur – but it is of necessity to the jurist.

    Reasonableness, Reason, Justification are tools of artist and entrepreneur for the purpose of creating hypotheses – that which may yet serve man.

    Science, Criticism, and Testimonialism are the tools of the jurist for the purpose of determining truth – that which exists independently of our opinions.

    The division of perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy, negotiation, and labor, exists everywhere.

    For every OBVERSE (hypothesis) there must exist a REVERSE (criticism).

    Creator and Jurist are necessary for a two dimensional imaginary plane to be represented as a three dimensional object in reality.

    (You see, I am perfectly capable of argument by informative analogy. But that is only because I know the truth, and wish to inform. It is not because I want to inform without first knowing the truth.)

    Theory:obverse and limits:reverse.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 06:20:00 UTC

  • WHY ARE SOME PROGRAMMERS 10,000 TIMES BETTER THAN THE REST? DOES IT MATTER? THEY

    WHY ARE SOME PROGRAMMERS 10,000 TIMES BETTER THAN THE REST? DOES IT MATTER? THEY ARE.

    Kirill just fixed a problem that has been with us for two years, that he solved in just a few hours – flawlessly. Yet, instead of being arrogant, he will also say “Alexey will do that, he has more patience than I do”. And Alexey will make fun of us both at times because we miss the logically obvious (to him). The difference is “Talent”, experience, research, persistence, hard work, and humility.

    So:

    – There many reasons that make a happy family, any one or more of which will make an unhappy family.

    – There are many reasons that an animal is domesticatable, any one of which will make it impossible to domesticate.

    – There are many reasons that make a programmer great any one of which will make the others only adequate.

    We have only four substantial issues left that I know of before BETA clients can use it:

    a) deliverable (sprint) accounting – which should not be hard. It means tracking the history of additions and subtractions of children from estimated and in-progress work.

    b) The reports which are our last feature for v1.

    c) The addition of reservations and appointments (forecasting) to the gantt chart. (I should never have cut it. it’s my fault. I know). We have to have them.

    d) Then my job…. :

    d0) Edit all the error and other messages.

    d1) Documentation and tutorials.

    d2) Default (sample) workflows and projects.

    I GO THRU THE LIST EVERY DAY, AND THATS IT FOR BETA.

    We’re in the last stretch!

    NITS I”M CONFESSING

    Some nits I’ve noticed that make me a little crazy, but aren’t blockers for release to beta sites.

    d) the inconsistency of button labels when editing tables. This will be something Kirill and I do in a few hours over coffee.

    e) a lot of the admin screens need to separate SELECTED items from UNSELECTED items. Right now they are combined in one table and this is confusing for users.

    I SUSPECT I WILL NOW BE THE SOURCE OF ANY DELAY since the documentation is enormous, and while I write fast, and I am partly through it, I degrade quickly when switching between the screen capture and art, and the text.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 05:57:00 UTC

  • OBVERSE THEORY, REVERSE CRITICISM: EXTERNALITIES? If we choose to try to fix thi

    OBVERSE THEORY, REVERSE CRITICISM: EXTERNALITIES?

    If we choose to try to fix this problem in society better than the market will, then, (a) what will we not fix instead, (b) what will we un-fix that the market of commons has fixed already, (c) what negative externalities will be created that we did not think of?

    Impulsivity is for answering the cries of children. Love of man requires doing no harm.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 05:56:00 UTC

  • ARE SOME MEN ABOVE THE LAW? ‘CAUSE IT’S HARD TO KNOW THE TERMS OF THE IMPLIED CO

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-c-nussbaum/why-some-men-are-above-the-law_b_8992754.html?utm_hp_ref=yahoo&ir=YahooWHY ARE SOME MEN ABOVE THE LAW? ‘CAUSE IT’S HARD TO KNOW THE TERMS OF THE IMPLIED CONTRACT BETWEEN ASYMMETRICALLY INFORMED PARTIES.

    (i.e. women want us to make the world safe for their impulses.)

    Hmmmm….. Not sure I agree. Surprisingly for me also.

    There is an enormous asymmetry of knowledge and experience between a man of the world at 40, and a naive (ignorant) college girl.

    I do not read Martha’s post any differently than the same young woman attempting to drive an exotic super car, and damaging it, and herself in the consequent accident. She assumed too much of herself in both circumstances. She should have had less confidence and more skepticism, and made more inquiries, and engaged incremental training of herself.

    The ethical question is not whether she disapprove of the experience. But why she was so ignorant, and why he was wiling to have sex with her, and why she expected him to have sex on her (naive) terms?

    From his perspective (and any man who has a lot of female attention), ‘rough sex’ is pretty commonplace – and often desirable, and often rewarded. (Thanks to the internet era, we have data now, so it’s not a matter of subjective opinion. It is what it is. Women prefer the inner gorilla to the outer gentleman, and more intelligent people tend to be worse at sex. )

    So it begs the question: why do we teach equality and subjective prediction of normative behavior, rather than asymmetry?

    As far as I can tell the postwar era was an intellectual, cultural, political, and economic, catastrophe – an experiment with a new postmodern mysticism.

    Effete (naive) subjective projections of norms to the contrary.

    Why do we lie? Why have we created a century of lies?

    Men are super-predators that have spent at least ten thousand years in self pacification through war, ritual, religion, politics, economics, law, sport, norms, the family, farming, mutual cooperation, and daily fighting. Why do we tell ourselves and others that man does anything other than act in his rational self interest given the options at his disposal?

    Women have had too little time to redevelop institutions and wisdom of controlling their impulses now that they are free of the hearth, home, and paternal and maternal protections.

    The law accounts for this by punishing people of similar experiences, and being skeptical of asymmetric experiences. As such **avoid asymmetric experiences** in all walks of life. Risks are fun but costly in all walks of life. A woman has a genetic bias to experiment with alphas but her youthful ignorance does not know how to manage them.

    We do not make the world better by making it safe for idiots to act in ignorance and impulsiveness. We make it better when we educate and avoid risks we do not understand the consequences of.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-c-nussbaum/why-some-men-are-above-the-law_b_8992754.html?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 05:30:00 UTC

  • Q&A: WHO INFLUENCED YOU? Who influenced you? Um. Have you seen my reading list?

    Q&A: WHO INFLUENCED YOU?

    Who influenced you? Um. Have you seen my reading list? Science influenced me. If I have to name a few philosophers it would be Hayek and Popper because they are the thinkers who attempted to restate social science as the study of information – and only partly succeeded.

    Otherwise I am influenced intellectually by science and scientists. Sentimentally by ‘hard’ Science Fiction, which I consider the reformation of mythology for use in modernity. Educationally by my study of fine art probably frames my reference more than any other. Recreationally by my study of history. Environmentally by germanic intellectual and cultural influences dominant in the early twentieth century. Genetically as an anglo conservative son of puritans, and catholic mother’s conservative idealism.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 04:35:00 UTC

  • WORKING WITH A FOOT IN BOTH WORLDS: PHILOSOPHY AND BUSINESS I always feel like w

    WORKING WITH A FOOT IN BOTH WORLDS: PHILOSOPHY AND BUSINESS

    I always feel like working in both worlds – analytic philosophy and business – has been a liability in some respects, and an asset in others.

    To some degree people discount both because you’re not limiting yourself to one or the other – although it certainly worked for most of the better thinkers in history to do both.

    So my career consists of people in business telling me I belong in a university, and people in academia telling me I am an entrepreneur. Frankly I belong right where I am – doing both. ‘Cause that is what makes me happy.

    But if I am remembered at all, it will be for my philosophy – not for the ten or so businesses I have built so far; each one of which was an experiment in social science.

    Although after Propertarianism and Testimonialism it is more likely that I will be thought of as a philosopher first, and an entrepreneur second. I suspect it will help my entrepreneurial efforts, despite its controversy.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 02:24:00 UTC

  • PLAYING BADMINTON WITH GREG SWAN 🙂 (I have no idea who this guy is. But why he

    PLAYING BADMINTON WITH GREG SWAN 🙂

    (I have no idea who this guy is. But why he wants to take shots at me is beyond me.)

    Greg.

    I suppose it’s fine if you pretend you’re witticisms are more than the philosophical equivalent of dick and fart jokes. I mean, I find dick and fart jokes humorous also. I find meaning and analogy helpful. I find ridicule entertaining. But they are the political equivalent of jacking off because you can’t get laid, and not voting because you have no chance, versus having sex, and rewriting the constitution because with both women and ideas you have won.

    So, you don’t seem to understand. I agree that stupid people need an intuitionistic analogist like you. In a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, and advocacy, I accept that stupid people need your work and smart people need my work. I just didn’t understand why you choose to attack my work for smart people when I didn’t attack your work for stupid people. Or why you don’t grasp that the world needs ideas for stupid people as as well as smart people – and always has. We need stupid people to storm the gates as canon fodder, or at least to tend the luggage. We need smart people to act as officers and to rule. We need a division of cognition and labor for serving the distribution of people who are stupid as well as smart.

    After all. We are largely saying the same things. Except you’re distributing meaning, understanding, tools of shaming, and self satisfaction as an escapist self defense for the disenfranchised – and I’m distributing social science for the next generation of rule of law, that can be imposed by force.

    But thank you for your repeat references, since all publicity is good publicity. 😉

    (The Kim Jong Il piece is awesome by the way.)

    – Cheers 🙂

    ( PS: The opposite of “tl;dr”, or “too long; didn’t read”, is “ts;sr”, or “too stupid, stopped reading.” The difference is, stupid people type the former, and smart people don’t bother typing the latter. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 02:20:00 UTC

  • COSTS OF TRUTH

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/the-costs-of-truth/THE COSTS OF TRUTH

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 01:43:00 UTC

  • HAS LARGELY BEEN USED LIKE RELIGION: TO LIE

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/30/13803/PHILOSOPHY HAS LARGELY BEEN USED LIKE RELIGION: TO LIE.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-18 18:24:00 UTC

  • MOST PHILOSOPHERS ARE SMART – BUT VICTIMS OF NEW MYSTICISM —“Are you sure Hopp

    MOST PHILOSOPHERS ARE SMART – BUT VICTIMS OF NEW MYSTICISM

    —“Are you sure Hoppe is this intelligent? It doesn’t seem like he is above any random sampling of legitimate philosophers. Argumentation ethics are outrageous.”—-

    That’s an interesting question. He’s intelligent, disciplined, articulate, and well read. He came very, very close to figuring out the fundamental problem of criticism. But you know if you go through the list of living philosophers, it’s… almost entirely a wasteland of nonsense.

    I think I understand what is wrong with western man’s intelligence (Hilary Putnam aside), and it’s that this set of lies I am fighting to overthrow – a sort of new mysticism – has infected everyone like a virus, and it is getting worse.

    There is no more some special hidden knowledge than there is a heaven. We have converted teh christian fantasy world into a post-mystical logical equivalent.

    Instead, the entire universe of man’s thought is quite simple – trivial even.

    This is why truth is so important.

    I didn’t think I could develop a way of articulating this new mysticism, like the ‘divine realm’ or ‘platonic realm’ or ‘world of the gods’ that came before it. I think I might be able to. Just as I have with truth and the evolution of weasel-words.

    But when we say “I search for the truth” vs “I wish to state this as truthfully as is possible” then we are creating a fantasy world. There is no truth to find. There is only error and ignorance to remove from the human mind.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-18 18:15:00 UTC