Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • i did beautiful work in philosophy today. it felt spiritually uplifting to see i

    i did beautiful work in philosophy today. it felt spiritually uplifting to see it all come together. So simply. So elegantly. So completely. I was exhausted. the answer is so trivially simple that it is hard to understand how it isn’t obvious. The truth is enough. But when we say that, it I mean truthful speech is enough.

    I can pretend speak the truth, but that is not possible.

    I can speak as a vector for the pretense of the truth.

    speak truthfully, which is possible

    speak incompetently and with error,

    speak as a vector for error and deception,

    And, lastly,

    speak as a deceiver.

    And the problem is, that speaking truthfully is unnatural to man – it is a skill. it’s difficult. And without the assistance of skills, norms and normative langue of truth, that assists us in speaking truthfully, it is nearly impossible for moral man, even if he tries.

    And the incentive for cunning man is so great to display his cunning he rarely grasps that he is himself an immoral man, creator of deception and obscurantism. He fools himself, fools others, and they become vectors for folly.

    Speaking truthfully is an art. Grammar, Rhetoric, and Propertarianism – including operationalism – make it extremely difficult to both speak sensibly and untruthfully at the same time.

    Our problem in government — which after FIVE HARD YEARS OF WORK I have finally got my arms around well enough to write down in simple terms — is that it was originated as a jury that approved or denied proposals submitted as theories. In construction of government, we combined theorist, jury and management, then theorist, jury, management, and staff; and lastly theorists, jury, management, staff, academy and church – all into the same body. And we expect this vast bureaucracy to function in our interests. Worse, we apply the jury system to representation – which must be the worst idea in human history.

    THE PROBLEM IS ACTUALLY EASY TO FIX.

    more later…

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 14:59:00 UTC

  • I love my female friends. They are amazing human beings. And they understand the

    I love my female friends. They are amazing human beings. And they understand the point of my arguments – and taunts- is to teach us to understand one another’s motives, so that we can be happier and happier together.

    My message is a simple one: men are contained by the family from perusing their best interests. The marriage is a compromise. And in a government over families, we all have the same interests due to that compromise.

    So under one family one vote, the competition between the genders was conducted outside of the state, and the state served the majority interest: the family.

    But upon achieving enfranchisement women sought increasingly to implement socialism, then to destroy the family, then arguably to dominate men through the female dominance of the electorate.

    But this assumes men will continue demonstrating the behaviour outside the marriage that they demonstrated inside the marriage.

    And this cannot and will not happen.

    Instead the self interest of makes that we se expressed in the rest of the world will be the only logical approach for men to take.

    All revolutions are created by a minority of angry men.

    The western Man will only act to ham in his interest with moral authority.

    And western man is beginning to understand that he has moral authority.

    The pendulum has swung as far as it can.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 14:00:00 UTC

  • WHY? You approval can be mere lie. Your consent can be withdrawn. Your submissio

    WHY?

    You approval can be mere lie.

    Your consent can be withdrawn.

    Your submission can be escaped.

    But your defeat cannot be unmade.

    It is forever visible for all to see.

    We don’t, I don’t, seek your approval,

    your consent, or your submission.

    We seek, I seek, your defeat.

    And we will, I will, once committed,

    never stop, ever, until you are defeated completely.

    And the truth alone is sufficient weapon to defeat you.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 13:25:00 UTC

  • You know I had a terrible temper when I was very young and I really hated it. An

    You know I had a terrible temper when I was very young and I really hated it. And it works if you hate it long enough and hard enough. You have to hate hit more than anything that would give it rise. By the time I was in high school I would laugh instead, and try to make fun of whatever else was going on.

    Now and then though. I really wish I had that terrible temper. 🙂

    I just don’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 12:20:00 UTC

  • You’re welcome to request your own approval, but I’m not interested in it. I’m i

    You’re welcome to request your own approval, but I’m not interested in it. I’m interested in defeat. We are interested in defeat. Ok? You had your shot. you were immoral so you failed. It’s time for moral men to defeat immoral men. And that includes you.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 12:17:00 UTC

  • (I just found out, via google alert, that someone has started a Propertarian For

    (I just found out, via google alert, that someone has started a Propertarian Forum.

    I’m not going to promote it unless whoever it is tells me it’s ready. But it’s cool that someone is out there doing it.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 12:06:00 UTC

  • CONVERTING THE EXPERIENTIAL TO THE OPERATIONAL TO THE CAUSAL (deep)(example of w

    CONVERTING THE EXPERIENTIAL TO THE OPERATIONAL TO THE CAUSAL

    (deep)(example of why we need operationalism and propertarianism)

    What is the definition of a ‘market’?

    Peeling away layers of human intellectual crutches to find the truth.

    My point is to question whether:

    1) Norm (reduction of transaction costs),

    2) Location (actually: density necessary to decrease opportunity costs), and;

    3) Exchange (actually the transfer of control according to normative rules sufficient to decrease transaction costs);

    In which exchange assumes:

    4) property, and property assumes family structure, and family structure assumes inheritance, and all of which assume division of labor, which in turn assumes a population, and structure of production available to it.

    So, just as an example, why isn’t the definition of a market a set of normative habits, that are the results of the structure of production, and the structure of the family, in relation to the nearby competitors, that encourage people to act and engage in distributed production and consumption, by reducing production costs through division of labor, opportunity costs through proximity and transaction costs through consensus rituals, such that production is rational to engage in, despite the ever decreasing knowledge of particulars, and increasing dependence upon prices alone?

    Something of that nature.

    I think what has been troubling me is the state-fulness ( not as in corporeal but as in fixed properties at a position in time) rather than the conditions that must be overcome in order for us to participate in rational action when we possess so little information.

    And I am trying to figure out how to capture the causal properties rather than the mere names of observations. We humans are fascinated by experiences, but we possess those experiential stimuli because it is necessary for us to acquire, and helpful for us to acquire through cooperation. So any experiential definition is circular. What then, is the cause prior to our experience?

    Reduction of production costs, reduction of opportunity costs, reduction of transaction costs, and through reduction of those costs we act according to the least effort to us.

    Our experiences merely reward us for the exploitation of, and construction of the means, of such cost reductions.

    WE JUST FOLLOW GRAVITY.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 09:46:00 UTC

  • Do no harm Expect no gifts. Earn all rewards. Punish the wicked

    Do no harm

    Expect no gifts.

    Earn all rewards.

    Punish the wicked.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 08:05:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    Home

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 07:50:00 UTC

  • WHY PHILOSOPHY NOT SCIENCE? Yes, well, the way I look at it, is that the job of

    WHY PHILOSOPHY NOT SCIENCE?

    Yes, well, the way I look at it, is that the job of philosophers is to integrate the findings of science into our system of -collection of- general rules, by which we agree upon a useful, beneficial, normative perception of the world we live in, and how we should act in it.

    So, I do understand that science, not philosophy, is the source of current knowledge.

    But we must understand what to value, and devalue and consider foul, and what to encode encode in law, not encode in law. Because while we may desire our preferences, the law describes the boundary beyond which our preferences may not pass.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 06:53:00 UTC