Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • There is no exit only conquest

    There is no exit only conquest.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-17 10:08:00 UTC

  • UM. THE GENDERS CANNOT TAKE EACH OTHER’S VENTING SERIOUSLY –“I can’t understand

    UM. THE GENDERS CANNOT TAKE EACH OTHER’S VENTING SERIOUSLY

    –“I can’t understand men who talk about … putting women back in the kitchen, out of the workforce, or referring to of r_pe during a war. …”— A Female Friend

    That’s because you aren’t a man. Just like I am not a woman and can’t imagine that they’re serious rather than hyperbolic (LARPing).

    I have overheard far too many conversations of women talking about their husbands as mere monetary and physical resources to be exploited, and the stupidity of men and how women would do such and such better, and how they need female ‘unity’. I am also aware that women are over-privileged compared to men in everything from moral intuitions, to daily life, to health care, to political processes. These things are simply empirical. But they do not change the opinions of women on their relative status.

    Naxalt(defense of child) is to some degree a defense against male hyperbole(defense of tribe).

    This is why it is so hard for males and females to communicate at any scale. This is why men and women cannot work in or debate politics together except under the most optimum of circumstances.

    Hyperbole (exaggeration) of offense, and NAXALT (exaggeration) of defense.

    Defending children vs Exciting men.

    These cognitive differences are real, universal, and inescapable.

    If men wanted to oppress women they would do so. They do not do so because those women are their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers.

    But if men agree to do something, there is nothing that can stop them. Because in the end, the use of violence determines all political conflict. And political competition is simply a means of circumventing political violence within the limits of provoking political violence.

    Western men treat their women better than all other people’s combined. And under majority democracy it has come at the cost of inequality of outcomes for those men. Hence why I recommend houses for the genders, if there is to be a democratic government of any kind: so that we limit each other.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-17 10:07:00 UTC

  • BUT, THAT’S WHAT LAW MEANS —“It’s the law because it’s the law, accept it” see

    BUT, THAT’S WHAT LAW MEANS

    —“It’s the law because it’s the law, accept it” seems like absolutism— Hue Whitman

    That’s what Laws of Nature(unconscious, deterministic) and Natural Law (conscious, volitionary) mean: they are DESCRIPTIVE. You cannot violate the laws of nature but you can manipulate them. You can violate the natural laws, and pay the consequences. The natural world already calculates its optimum, and we ‘cheat’ it. The natural law is something else men cheat. However, the optimum method of human evolution is the elimination of cheating (parasitism). If you eliminate all parasitism you end up with natural law. If you do not then you don’t.

    That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, and which means “Absolute” in archaic moral language.

    We have ‘appropriated’ the term ‘law’ in science, and reframed the original meaning of law as the series Findings of Common Law (Court), Command(Ruler), Legislation(Government), Regulation(Bureaucracy).

    The Continental system of law is different in this hierarchy since the continent uses Roman and Napoleonic law, and the state is separate from the people, whereas in Anglo (Scandinavian) Civilization, the Rulers are just current members of the people.

    This subtle difference is profound in consequence between the continental and intercontinental (anglo) civilizations.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-17 09:09:00 UTC

  • GRAMMARS IN TESTIMONIALISM I use a definition of grammar that limits semantic co

    GRAMMARS IN TESTIMONIALISM

    I use a definition of grammar that limits semantic content to the grammatical operations available.

    0) Universal Grammar: (serial, continuous, recursive, disambiguation)

    1) Grammar: Limited to dimensions of reality.

    2) Semantics: Vocabulary within the limits of the Grammar

    So you can look at language the old way: semantics on up. Or you can look at language the new way, grammars on down.

    So when I use ‘grammar’ it is closer to ‘means of communication, advocacy, persuasion, argument, and rejection’.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-17 08:39:00 UTC

  • Seriously. Humans are the best toys. Ya’ ever tape a cat’s feet? Well, you can d

    Seriously. Humans are the best toys. Ya’ ever tape a cat’s feet? Well, you can do the same to humans with just a few words. More fun to watch. And nobody thinks you’re being mean…. at least, if you act innocent enough… lolz

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-17 08:30:00 UTC

  • THE INVERTED PYRAMID OF KNOWLEDGE From Base To Top 0 – Mindfulness: Living as a

    THE INVERTED PYRAMID OF KNOWLEDGE

    From Base To Top

    0 – Mindfulness: Living as a Self.

    1 – Religion(I): Living Amongst Men

    2 – Lit(I): Understanding the Ambitions of Men

    3 – History: Understanding the Limits Men (Reconciling The Reality)

    4 – Sciences(K): Understanding the Universe (big, human, and small)

    5 – Calculation(S): Categorization, comparison, Measurement,

    Reason, calculation

    6 – Skill(S): Understand Application in the service of self, family, others, man.

    7 – Fitness,

    8 – Fighting

    9 – War

    10 – Rule

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-17 08:25:00 UTC

  • CAN WE ELIMINATE RELIGION? NOT REALLY, BUT THAT REQUIRES WE DEFINE RELIGION AS M

    CAN WE ELIMINATE RELIGION? NOT REALLY, BUT THAT REQUIRES WE DEFINE RELIGION AS MARKET DEMANDS RATHER THAN THE CURRENT MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

    (repost)

    —“However unrealistic of a goal it might be, wouldn’t the ideal situation be a world without organised religion? Or is there some benefit to religion that I’m not seeing?”—Dann Hopkins

    Religion is just education. that’s all. Period. The ‘trick’ of both church and state is to claim church does no education, or that state education is sufficient.

    We need training in physical fitness, mindfulness, manners-ethics-morals-rituals (payments to the commons), the laws, the means of calculating that we think of as the 3R’s, the skills to run a household, and the skills for employment.

    It does not, as it once did, provide for physical fitness.

    It provides mindfulness in the personal, interpersonal, and public spheres of life.

    It provides the some of the manners, ethics, morals rituals that are the positive laws of the social order (not negative laws as is law proper).

    It provides a venue for public contract making (this is my child, this is my promise to the community, this is my mate, this is our property, this person has died and his or her property may be distributed).

    It is, to some degree, a computational necessity – meaning that it is very bad not to have that mindfulness.

    It provides child-level parables and myths which are no less a form of calculation about action in the world than are laws, logic, and mathematics.

    But there is no reason we cannot have lessons, parables and mythos and histories for each class of people at each stage of their lives, all of which contain the same messages.

    There is no reason the church rather than the school, post office, or library is not still the center of civic life, and that government is not relegated to the production and maintenance of material commons, just as we keep commerce out of religion.

    So I think I have most of this figured out – not that I am interested in the content in and of itself, but that I understand how to frame the problem, and restore the incentives, such that the second abrahamic dark age does not capture our people.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-17 08:01:00 UTC

  • “What are your thoughts on learned intelligence,cause intelligence? Can we there

    —“What are your thoughts on learned intelligence,cause intelligence? Can we therefore train people to be intelligent(by following certain laws),for example charlie munger has a law of “always arguing the other side better than the opponent”,so did Cicero,and it a nice way of avoiding confirmation bias ,if we create certain rules such as these and train people(like dogs),will we increase their intelligence”— Abhimanyu Karnawat

    There are three issues here. And I’m going to expand the range of your question from intelligence to intuition to political consequences.

    The first is that intelligence improves with the ability to use language and ideas to calculate. In other words, if you learn english and science and logica, and mathematics a PEOPLE will get smarter by about a standard deviation or so. But it lifts all people in the culture equally. So it’s not so much that we improve the brain but that we improve the precision of it’s means of calculation by better information.

    The Second is whether people can produce what we call mindfulness through various trainings (equation, discipline, ritual, practice). The other is whether we know what to train them IN (content).

    I want to know how to eliminate all falsehood from that training (content) and any externalities (side effects) caused by the method of practice.

    The third is that Everyone in the world wants to preserve his favorite falsehoods – because they’re culture, class, gender and era dependent.

    I want to know what is NOT dependent upon those biases.

    That’s science.

    Now, I am going to clearly bias myself to naturalism because I’m definitely on the Naturalist (scientific) Nature worshiping (old religions), Pagan(hearth religion) side of the anglo scandinavian and german tradition. I know that. I know that is my bias.

    The question is whether those biases matter if we get the science right. And I think they don’t.

    Particularly for hindu since all in all it’s a pretty awesome religion that scaled nicely.

    In my undrestanding the Japanese resisted religion the longest because they had no reason for it.

    The chinese and japanese governments were either advocats or forcible imposers of buddhism. There were reasons for doing it and they weren’t good.

    The west had no need of religion either. It was forced on them , and then coerced upon them.

    I am slowly gaining an understanding of the spread of religion across india and I think it is the most ‘faithful’ to folk religions.

    I have only recently come to understand that there is good secular work in indian history – very far back in time. And I have begun studying it a bit. The content is purely empirical and practical and of exceptional quality – equal if not better than the chinese (who are have a problem with loving poetic sounding prose).

    I think it is terribly easy to rid the world of Abrahamism in all its forms if we have yet another more secular or naturalist reformation of christianity in the west and bring it closer to our ancestral religion of the hearth home and nature.

    But it is not something easily done. And the world has only one enemy today: the followers of the abrahamic religion and their cult of revolution and conquest.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-16 12:29:00 UTC

  • The Anglo, Italian, French, German, Polish-Ukrainian, Russian, Jewish, tradition

    The Anglo, Italian, French, German, Polish-Ukrainian, Russian, Jewish, traditions all distribute emphasis on the Grammars differently.

    Every sub-civilization (culture) attempts to bring its GRAMMAR into a monopoly. Yet these grammars are biased for each group for reason: territory, competitors, rate of middle class development, and institutional history.

    I think this — comparative civilizations – is very difficult for people because we are trained INTUITIONISTICALLY not RATIONALLY.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-16 12:15:00 UTC

  • VS TALEB There isn’t any difference between taleb and I other than he prefers li

    VS TALEB

    There isn’t any difference between taleb and I other than he prefers literary philosophy, literature, reason, and math. He’s exhausted the math direction. He’s pretty much exhausted the literary direction, and he is very close to understanding that there is no positivist solution, and that only the law (warranty of due diligence) – which he calls skin in the game – is a possible method of testing whether individuals have sufficient agency AND honesty AND ethics to make choices.

    Otherwise I don’t know why we’re incompatible.

    Jeppeson hasn’t had an idea other than to retread derrida by adding in chomsky, and trying to create ‘social construction’ of authoritarianism (a religion of male authoritarian postmodernism) to compete with the left’s religion of feminine authoritarianism.)

    (I just deal with science, economics, law, education, and now that form of education we call religion.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-12-16 11:54:00 UTC