Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Untitled

    http://www.tcmag.com/magazine/bill_burr_on_the_epidemic_of_gold_digging_whoresyep

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-12 23:46:00 UTC

  • can only hope

    http://www.businessinsider.com/scottish-independence-vote-scotland-cotagion-catalonia-2014-9We can only hope….

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-12 20:35:00 UTC

  • THE CONSEQUENCE OF CRITICAL RATIONALISM IS PERFORMATIVE TRUTH. What is the diffe

    THE CONSEQUENCE OF CRITICAL RATIONALISM IS PERFORMATIVE TRUTH.

    What is the difference then, between the critical rationalist position that we cannot know the truth of a theory, only eliminate error; and the consequential argument that I cannot know that you speak the truth, and therefore must be sure that you speak honestly and without error?

    You know; the blade cuts both ways. Just as in science we are constrained to constructing recipes and eliminating error, in all our arguments we are constrained to operational descriptions, and defending against deception.

    Not sure how critical rationalists who buy into Popperian platonism feel about that – but I think it is an inescapable consequence of the critical rationalist assertion.

    We can construct recipes. We can testify to operations. That’s all we can do. Any narrative we construct is a memory device and nothing more.

    Why do we need theories anyway? Justification? If I construct by verbal means, a general rule, that describes common properties of many recipes, then have I really done anything at all other than create a loose description of similar recipes? That description places no constraints on future recipes. Isnt’ this just an artifact of speech? Of verbalism? Isn’t speech a symbolic generalization of many memories? So why should we give such weight to what amounts to a verbal protocol for the purpose of simplifying communication. i mean, wouldn’t it be easier to just transfer memories of related instances? We can’t do that but that’s what our words attempt to do.

    Actions not words.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-12 14:20:00 UTC

  • LITTLE LUXURIES Overwhelming explosion of leafy green – everywhere. Line-drying

    LITTLE LUXURIES

    Overwhelming explosion of leafy green – everywhere.

    Line-drying your clothes in the sun – just to get that wonderful smell.

    Listening to the crickets, grasshoppers, and birds.

    A garden that needs cutting back rather than fertilizer.

    The difference in temperature between the sun porch at 120 degrees, and the shade at 60.

    Seeing the first flowers change in response to the first cool night.

    Bare feet on a freshly mown lawn.

    Living life at human scale.

    You see that last bit?

    That’s the whole of it.

    We don’t need to increase productivity.

    We need to decrease it.

    There isn’t any need for it.

    Unemployment is not a problem.

    It’s only that we don’t pay people,

    For constructing the social order:

    Property rights, and the commons.

    Human Scale.

    We did not understand what we were doing.

    We can end the century of mysticism.

    Life and family are too beautiful to rush through.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-12 13:36:00 UTC

  • SMARTPHONE QUESTION You know, I’m not really an apple fanboy, but I use apple eq

    SMARTPHONE QUESTION

    You know, I’m not really an apple fanboy, but I use apple equipment because everything works together fairly flawlessly, and I can count on it and count on not having to toy with it.

    I have used iPhones as a late adopter, staying one generation behind (which has usually been beneficial given some of the problems.)

    But seeing the iPhone 6, I’m just having trouble justifying buying it compared to the Galaxy s5. The S5 has a much better camera, a much better screen, and all around better numbers. I can get my favorite wallet-case (Incipio Stowaway) for it as well, meaning that I still don’t need to carry a wallet, just my phone with cash, credit card and ID inside it.

    Sorry if I have to ask this, but If I left the iphone, what would I be giving up by doing so? (Serious answers pls)

    Thanks

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-12 11:38:00 UTC

  • READ : MOLDBUG’S JOURNEY FROM LIBERTARIANISM TO THE DARK SIDE

    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/02/from-mises-to-carlyle-my-sick-journey.htmlRECOMMENDED READ : MOLDBUG’S JOURNEY FROM LIBERTARIANISM TO THE DARK SIDE

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-12 11:36:00 UTC

  • RADICAL NOT CONSERVATIVE Or, why I am and am not a conservative at the same time

    RADICAL NOT CONSERVATIVE

    Or, why I am and am not a conservative at the same time. 🙂

    My position is radical, not conservative. I’m not advocating retention of the status quo (the definition of conservatism), nor am I asking to return to the past. But insisting that we adopt institutions suitable to our people’s competitive needs, which are also as it turns out, man’s evolutionary needs – because of the uniqueness of our civilization.

    Yes, we can learn from our past, in that we can learn what caused our success – resistance to the concentration of power (division of power), the division of labor, testimonial truth, and the common law.

    Truth is inseparable from calculation, and calculation inseparable from action, and given the necessity and utility of action, all else is justification and deception in pursuit of competition within the existing genetic, geography, family, economic, and political structure. Or more clearly: while it is possible to calculate verbally, it is also possible to lie and deceive verbally. Where it is not so possible to lie and deceive operationally (calculatively).

    The cost of this difference is meaning. The problem is, when we say meaning, how much of this is justification to the self, or justification to others? Is not all philosophy and argument merely political?

    Until I started focusing on Neo-Reaction instead of the fallacies of libertine-libertarianism, I did not perhaps understand the full import of what I am doing. Is meaning merely a feeble attempt to connect the intuitive with the calculative? Can we instead of separating our mental activity into intuition and reason (verbalism), can we separate it into perception, intuition, calculation, and justification? Is reason but justification?

    If this is true then human intellectual history is upside down.

    I am not there yet, but getting closer.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-12 11:04:00 UTC

  • IS PHILOSOPHY A PROTOCOL FOR JUSTIFICATION? AND IS PHILOSOPHY A FORM OF CALCULAT

    IS PHILOSOPHY A PROTOCOL FOR JUSTIFICATION? AND IS PHILOSOPHY A FORM OF CALCULATION?

    I am fairly certain that calculation in the wider sense – that which is necessary for action – precedes verbalism necessary for philosophy, and I am unsure that philosophy as currently stated is calculative and necessary, or whether it is merely justificationary.

    In other words, is philosophy a form of calculating, or is calculating a form of philosophy? And I am increasingly convinced the former.

    We may require philosophy to categorize and describe such things but we do not require philosophy to act, nor to act morally, where morally is defined as prohibiting free riding in-group and prohibiting imposed costs in and out-group. We did these things prior to philosophy, and they exist independent of philosophy.

    Furthermore, how do we account for the use of philosophy for the purpose of deception and obscurantism in the french, german and jewish schools, the use of mysticism in most other cultures, or the past (Kant) and current (progressives,postmoderns, libertarians) use of moral philosophy to restate christianity in non mystical terms. In other words, calculation (demonstrated action as well) does not allow us to make such framing and loading, while language does, and it is quite possible to use language to err, lie, obscure, frame, load and overload.

    This gets quite deep in distinguishing between demonstrable actions stated as operations and analogies as used in philosophy and reason. And I want to stay on track. But it is useful to at least point out that I am approaching problems descriptively via action, and treating language as largely justificationary. That shouldn’t be a big leap really.

    Philosophy is necessary to justify to the self or others, but it is not necessary for action. Hopefully that makes sense. I may be engaging in philosophical discourse but that is very different from planning and acting.) I work with operationalism precisely because it is insulated from the various sins of rationalism. That is why science and even psychology have adopted Operationalism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-12 08:33:00 UTC

  • NEO-REACTION (RESTORATION OF ARISTOCRACY) Even though I’ve spent the past month

    NEO-REACTION (RESTORATION OF ARISTOCRACY)

    Even though I’ve spent the past month almost entirely on the business, for the past few days I’ve been trying to write a restatement of Neo-Reaction (The Dark Enlightenment) in Propertarian language. There are a lot of introductory pieces on NeoReaction out there, but they’re all fairly weak. It’s much easier to write a “Neo Reaction for Dummies” with Propertarianism. But I am trying to cover all the subjects (there are not that many really), and turn their (Mostly Mencius’) ideas away from the poetic into the analytic.

    THREE CULTURAL AXIS

    1) Mencius picked up on Rothbard’s correct attribution of puritanism to the postmodern condition, but not that Rothbard tried to avoid admitting the cosmopolitan influence (the jews), or that the Cathedral constitutes a conspiracy between the three axis: (a) anglo secular restatement of christianity, (b) the jewish combination of socialism, libertine-libertarianism, and Neo-Conservatism,and (c) the continental influence of the germans and the french, as equally anti-enlightenment attempts to preserve authoritarian orders.

    THREE PERSUASIVE AXIS

    2) No one in the movement seems to have grasped either Johnson’s insight that there exist only three means of persuasion (force, payment, moral persuasion), or my insight, that social classes organize around specializations in these forms of persuasion – and that this is why neo-reaction has been articulated in three different forms, mirroring the three forms of the jewish attack on aristocracy: socialism, libertine-libertarianism, and Neo-conservatism. I think I can add value by explaining this relationship to the movement.

    REASON

    They (again, mostly Mencius) have correctly identified the failure of Reason, but they have not equally identified the solution to the problem of reason as Calculability (or, in my work, what I call Operationalism) nor the corresponding solution as one of simply speaking the truth. This I can understand because while I intuited the problem very early on, I was only able to solve it finally over the past year and a half. I think it took me twelve or fourteen years from initial intuition to full articulation.

    More to do.

    Interesting stuff.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-11 08:36:00 UTC

  • me skeptical

    http://www.businessinsider.com/future-human-evolution-2014-9Color me skeptical…

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-10 20:19:00 UTC