Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Q&A: SEPARATENESS OF THE MIND? —“Q: I came to be aware [of] Julian Jaynes’ the

    Q&A: SEPARATENESS OF THE MIND?

    —“Q: I came to be aware [of] Julian Jaynes’ thesis materials. Seems to jive with your theme, Curt. You alluding to a similar theme when referencing the Pentateuch, or the Bible?”—Mark Palmer

    Great question Mark. Great Question.

    Well, I don’t really agree with how Jaynes is stating it, but I agree that the ‘separateness’ of the mind, and it’s self criticism, is a fairly recent invention in human history. You can see it if you talk to native americans and unexposed south american indians. Their distinction between the dream world and the rational (self critical) world is not bifurcated. It took me a while to understand this. They’re also far less verbally capable. So I suspect that the evolution of language and the evolution of the mind from from intuition are produced by the same evolutionary consequences.

    I mean women are definitely unable to control the noise in their heads as well as men are – this is the difference in our operating methods. I’d have a nervous breakdown if I had to be a woman for a day.

    Well, I’m trying to make the statement that the both the hebrew and the christian-greek-roman bible were constructed by means very similar to the construction of the constitution.

    But why is there such a difference between the content of archaic religion and the content modern of law? Or between the regulation of the roman empire, and the regulation of women, slaves, and the masses of medeterranean poor?

    The difference is PROPERTY. The asset of poor people is charity and cooperation. The asset of propertied people is property.

    Religion for regulation of norms (opportunity and insurance) and law for regulation of property (physical things).

    So what does that mean for our future? I think I have that figured out. But I want to eliminate the artificial distinction between Law(aristocracy), Philosophy(middle class) and Religion(poor).

    These technologies all serve the same purpose: regulation of classes.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-23 04:07:00 UTC

  • oops… too much caffeine this morning. Dizzy, dizzy, and that means I’ll crash

    oops… too much caffeine this morning. Dizzy, dizzy, and that means I’ll crash at 4:00 pm.

    Where are Andy Curzon, Don Finn and Johannes Meixner to discipline me when I need them?

    lol

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-23 03:53:00 UTC

  • EVOLUTION OF OUR VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES OF COOPERATION (Q: Can You Think of a Name

    EVOLUTION OF OUR VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES OF COOPERATION

    (Q: Can You Think of a Name for Each Axis?)

    1) Tribal Hunter Gatherer -> Steppe/Desert -> Agrarian -> Urban -> (Slum?)

    2) Headman -> Chieftain -> King -> President/Prime Minister -> (Judge?)

    3) Memory -> Oral Tradition -> Written -> Printing -> Media -> (Digital Records?)

    4) Norm -> Religion -> Law -> Credit -> (Digital Reputation?)

    5) Spiritualism-> Mythos-> Religion-> Reason -> Pseudoscience -> Science -> Truth

    6) Animism-> Polytheism-> Monotheism-> Reason-> PseudoScientism-> Trade.

    7) Property -> Barter -> Money -> Interest and Credit -> Fiat Money -> (Baskets?)

    8) Property -> Wealth -> Partnerships -> Banks -> Central Banks -> ( stocks?)

    9) Pairing-Off -> Counting -> Recording -> Balanced Accounting -> Financialization -> (?)

    10) Tribal -> Serial -> Poly -> Paternal -> Traditional -> Nuclear -> (Individual?)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-23 03:29:00 UTC

  • WHO INVENTED THE BIG LIE? We start with Zoroaster who is the first philosopher.

    WHO INVENTED THE BIG LIE?

    We start with Zoroaster who is the first philosopher.

    —“Zoroaster sees the human condition as the mental struggle between aša (truth) and druj (lie). The cardinal concept of aša—which is highly nuanced and only vaguely translatable—is at the foundation of all Zoroastrian doctrine, including that of Ahura Mazda (who is aša), creation (that is aša), existence (that is aša) and as the condition for free will.

    The purpose of humankind, like that of all other creation, is to sustain aša. For humankind, this occurs through active participation in life and the exercise of constructive thoughts, words and deeds.

    Elements of Zoroastrian philosophy entered the West through their influence on Judaism and Middle Platonism and have been identified as one of the key early events in the development of philosophy.[32] Among the classic Greek philosophers, Heraclitus is often referred to as inspired by Zoroaster’s thinking.[33]

    In 2005, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy ranked Zarathustra as first in the chronology of philosophers. Zarathustra’s impact lingers today due in part to the system of rational ethics he founded called Mazda-Yasna. The word Mazda-Yasna is avestan and is translated as “Worship of Wisdom” in English. Zoroastrians later educated the Greeks, who used a similar term, philosophy, or “love of wisdom,” to describe the search for ultimate truth.

    Zoroaster emphasized the freedom of the individual to choose right or wrong and individual responsibility for one’s deeds. This personal choice to accept aša or arta (the divine order), and shun druj (ignorance and chaos) is one’s own decision and not a dictate of Ahura Mazda. For Zarathustra, by thinking good thoughts, saying good words, and doing good deeds (e.g. assisting the needy or doing good works) we increase this divine force aša or arta in the world and in ourselves, celebrate the divine order, and we come a step closer on the everlasting road to being one with the Creator. Thus, we are not the slaves or servants of Ahura Mazda, but we can make a personal choice to be his co-workers, thereby refreshing the world and ourselves.”—-

    You will note that this is a pretty indo-european, indo-iranian, indo-hindu line of thinking. Yes it is magian. But he has no other method of expressing the ideas as ultimate goods.

    THE EVOLUTION OF THE BIG LIE

    There is a very big difference between “You Shall Worship One God”, “There is One Supreme God”, and “Only One God Exists”.

    There is a big difference between ‘the creator’s truth’, as the only available means of expression of truthful correspondence (and living a good life by personal action), and the assertion that god exists and we must obey him (authoritarianism).

    There is a big difference between the variable oral tradition of mythical gods and the invariable written tradition of supernaturally existential gods.

    So how did we get from the search for truth to The Big Lie?

    Who invented the Big Lie?

    —” Pentateuch was composed in the Persian period (roughly 520–320 BCE), as a result of tensions between the Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and claimed Abraham as the “father” through whom they traced their right to the land, and the returning “Priestly” exiles who based their claim to dominance on Moses and the Exodus tradition.”—

    The Big Lie was invented to lay a claim to land.

    Moses and Abraham appear to be entirely fictional characters, used to justify the retention of property in Judea.

    A big lie repeated often and proudly eventually appears as truth. The cost of chanting pays for the investment in belief.

    The big lies worked (voice of god) in the ancient world (babylon and Judah), they worked in the roman empire (christianity), they worked in the modern world (Marx, Boaz, Freud, and to a lesser degree Cantor, Mises, Rothbard).

    And reached culmination with Humanism(universalism), Postmodernism(social and verbal construction of reality), Feminism (that man is evil), Democracy(that majority possesses wisdom).

    We cure the big lies with truth.

    Over and over again.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-23 03:28:00 UTC

  • There is very little difference between the negotiated construction of the Penta

    There is very little difference between the negotiated construction of the Pentateuch, or the Bible, and the American Constitution: they were the product of committees constructing the criteria for civil law. This is quite contradictory to the Indo European Tradition in which law EVOLVES.

    But these things are constructs of man for the purpose of governing man.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-23 03:23:00 UTC

  • Political Philosophy is a lot easier when you just start from the premise that a

    Political Philosophy is a lot easier when you just start from the premise that all goods are hypothetical, all bads are not, and that the only means of accumulating the knowledge to determine good from bad is exchange. This eliminates the fallacy that any of us know what is in fact good for all, other than institutions that allow us to choose any possible good but prohibit us from pursuing any known bad are a defacto good by prohibiting bads.

    This is contrary to human cognition because we evolved for negotiating cooperation not truth telling. It is contrary to human desire, because we desire consensus. It is contrary to political incentive because it limits political power.

    We all think we are ‘right’. But the only ‘right’ we can know is trade. Just as the only way we know whether we engaged in production or engaged in waste, consumption, or entertainment, is if others trade for what we create.

    Information and volition tell us what ‘right and wrong’ do not.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-23 02:13:00 UTC

  • DEAR HOLLYWOOD (my casting gripe) Please stop casting lower middle class and upp

    DEAR HOLLYWOOD

    (my casting gripe)

    Please stop casting lower middle class and upper proletarian actors in upper middle class and upper class professional and intellectual roles.

    Please stop writing dramatic sequences between professionals that would only be spoken by blue collar and white collar clerical workers. I mean, go watch and Aaron Sorkin movie if you have to. But you know, impulsivity and emotionalism decline rapidly with competence.

    I mean, it’s embarrassing – and it eliminates any possibility of suspension of disbelief.

    You get one ‘gimme’ in any bit of literature. If you put together say, a sci fi movie, then you need the characters to work. If you put together a contemporary drama the ‘gimme’ can be the characters.

    But seriously. I mean, these things are expensive.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-22 15:03:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-22 14:16:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-22 14:15:00 UTC

  • WE CAN LOOK AT IT BOTH WAYS Have we failed to create equality through forcible r

    WE CAN LOOK AT IT BOTH WAYS

    Have we failed to create equality through forcible redistribution? Or have we failed to constrain reproduction of the unproductive?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-22 06:32:00 UTC