Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Getting to Your Personal Epiphany

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:21 AM

    —“I feel you are missing the archetypal experience description. I get that that could be included in testimonial but feel empirical science/lawful testimony and mystical testimony are two different functions.”—Bill Smith

    Try again. I can sense something there and I probably know how to answer it but I’m not sure.

    —“Scientific experience is summarized in scientific testimonial which leads in the direction of expressions of empirical natural law. … Mystical experience is expressed in poetry, the development of religious structures that send one down a destination-less path and manifestations of the ephemeral like the Runes. … I believe they are different things requiring different metrics and modes of expression and experience.”—Bill Smith

    Correct. The question is, must they be coherent compatible and commensurable even if they are expressed in different grammars: deflationary-scientific vs inflationary-poetic. And my answer is yes. There is no reason for conflict. And it is this conflict that undermines our civlization from within.

    —“If you’re saying what I think you’re saying I’m about to tear up due to the truth you’re conveying… as I’ve never known anyone else who did or even could communicate that fundamental lack intrinsic to our culture.

    That was a powerful experience.

    Actually I think you might have broken me. At least … I hope you did.”—Bill Smith

    Broken means bad? lol. What does that mean? I’m scared.

    —“Broken as in the change in conscious experience of reality due to a distinguishable event or experience but is dependent on previous works or studies.”—

    Ok. “a moment of sudden revelation or insight.” Revelation, Epiphany, Paradigm Shift. (Good. I don’t have to feel guilty all day now. lol -hugs.)

  • It’s Not Free Markets Its Rule of Law

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:23 AM Free market capitalism is not what raises people. It’s rule of law that limits irreciprocity and forces people into LIMITED MARKETS, not ‘free’ markets. Those markets are limited to the prohibition on externalities. Free market capitalism was invented by the abrahamists to circumvent those limits and to profit from false promise, baiting into harm, harmful externality, and social undermining.

  • It’s Not Free Markets Its Rule of Law

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:23 AM Free market capitalism is not what raises people. It’s rule of law that limits irreciprocity and forces people into LIMITED MARKETS, not ‘free’ markets. Those markets are limited to the prohibition on externalities. Free market capitalism was invented by the abrahamists to circumvent those limits and to profit from false promise, baiting into harm, harmful externality, and social undermining.

  • The Revolution in The Ancient World

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:37 AM The revolution in the ancient world was democritus’ atomism, socratic skepticism (failure), platonic idealism(failure), and the success of aristotelian reason, empiricism, proto-science, stoic and epicurean replacement of conflationary religion, and roman law and administration, creating markets for all peoples – but the semites (the equivalent of ghettos) couldn’t grasp that ‘uncontrolled vision’ and sought to restore controlled (feminine) monopoly and conflation using female methods of deceit, and the female method of undermining from within. The revolution in the modern world starts with aesthetics in italy and makes its way into the legal minds who apply it to science producing the anglo revolution (athens). The germans(spartans) reacted by doubling down on it and becoming the worlds best materialists, and the americans inherited both civilizations for a time when the french and russians instigated the third war of german containment. Edit

  • The Revolution in The Ancient World

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:37 AM The revolution in the ancient world was democritus’ atomism, socratic skepticism (failure), platonic idealism(failure), and the success of aristotelian reason, empiricism, proto-science, stoic and epicurean replacement of conflationary religion, and roman law and administration, creating markets for all peoples – but the semites (the equivalent of ghettos) couldn’t grasp that ‘uncontrolled vision’ and sought to restore controlled (feminine) monopoly and conflation using female methods of deceit, and the female method of undermining from within. The revolution in the modern world starts with aesthetics in italy and makes its way into the legal minds who apply it to science producing the anglo revolution (athens). The germans(spartans) reacted by doubling down on it and becoming the worlds best materialists, and the americans inherited both civilizations for a time when the french and russians instigated the third war of german containment. Edit

  • Why It Is so Difficult to Be Wrong when Making a P-Argument.

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:47 AM Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification). These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.

  • Why It Is so Difficult to Be Wrong when Making a P-Argument.

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:47 AM Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification). These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.

  • Weak Minds Need Certainty

    Feb 24, 2020, 12:17 PM Where are aristotle, plato, socrates, zeno, epicurus, roman law, greek mathematics, and the christian destruction of the ancient world in your narrative? The talmud and the bible an koran are not an enlightenment but simply the marxism-socialism- postmodernism-feminism of the ancient world: the coutner-revolution against reason. The revolution in the ancient world was democritus’ atomism, socratic skepticism (failure), platonic idealism(failure), and the success of aristotelian reason, empiricism, proto-science, stoic and epicurean replacement of conflationary religion, and roman law and administration, creating markets for all peoples – but the semites (the equivalent of ghettos) couldn’t grasp that ‘uncontrolled vision’ and sought to restore controlled (feminine) monopoly and conflation using female methods of deceit, and the female method of undermining from within. Weak minds need certainty. Mindfulness doesn’t.

  • Weak Minds Need Certainty

    Feb 24, 2020, 12:17 PM Where are aristotle, plato, socrates, zeno, epicurus, roman law, greek mathematics, and the christian destruction of the ancient world in your narrative? The talmud and the bible an koran are not an enlightenment but simply the marxism-socialism- postmodernism-feminism of the ancient world: the coutner-revolution against reason. The revolution in the ancient world was democritus’ atomism, socratic skepticism (failure), platonic idealism(failure), and the success of aristotelian reason, empiricism, proto-science, stoic and epicurean replacement of conflationary religion, and roman law and administration, creating markets for all peoples – but the semites (the equivalent of ghettos) couldn’t grasp that ‘uncontrolled vision’ and sought to restore controlled (feminine) monopoly and conflation using female methods of deceit, and the female method of undermining from within. Weak minds need certainty. Mindfulness doesn’t.

  • re: Jackson Crawford, Tyr vs. Odin as Chief God

    Feb 24, 2020, 4:29 PM In order to suppress controversy you’re overstating your case. You’re representing sources, because under the defensive protection of the scientific method, we don’t hypothesize without evidence. Meanwhile I think Dumezil and the rest of us are interested in the evolution of european natural religion over time. To claim we can’t use etymology which is about as close to genetic evidence that we come, is rather unscientific, and to claim we can’t apply the same method of analysis to mythology is also. And to claim the popularity of the farmer’s god over the ruling class’ god in a tripartite hierarchical society given the difference in those demographics isn’t scientific either. Every mythos we know of evolved like every political and legal technology and every narrative technology by rules similar to language. Every mythic tradition is subject to the same forensics. So you’re creating conflict where there isn’t any. It is very hard to argue that Odin didn’t rise to prominence some time between the IE expansion and first testimony (roman). That would mean that european natural religion had a deus ex machina moment and Odin came out of nowhere in contrast to the entire cross civilizational IE pantheon. In the context of all those european mythologies, Odin is a pretty clear rotation into prominence. And Odin is the ‘odd man out’ in european religion. Of the european iranic and indo-iranic branches, each group evolved deities to fulfill the needs of a survival narrative given geographic and cultural competition. Europeans gods are are interesting because conquering (and replacing) early neolithic farmers was easier than the more advanced civilizations of the indus and mesopotamian regions. They were under less adaptive pressure. Yet still we have Odin. Why? That’s the interesting question. How did he rotate into prominence and why? So to say Odin is the primary germanic god – well of course he is by the thirteenth century record. That doesn’t tell us anything interesting. It doesn’t provide explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us why and where he came from. What change or pressure or advantage caused the germanic branch of the european expansion to rotate a psychopomp into the primary god (all father) to replace sky father? What drove the germanic adaptation (rotation) of a psychopomp into the god of the aristocracy?