Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553352482 Timestamp) “wooo wooo, the government is scary.” Not really. Do the numbers.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553442870 Timestamp) THE SERIES OF GRAMMARS PSYCHOLOGY (important) (read this) —“is there any smaller sphere in which you think psychoanalysis is an appropriate method or inquiry? (ie, hopefully the one it is intended for – personal therapy rather than public argumentation).”— Gerard I think that it is always better to use this series:

    1. Means: Personality traits and reward systems. (anglo/physical)

    2. Cause: Acquisitionism and Propertarianism.(masculine/objective)

    3. Training: Stoicism (Acquisition of virtues by CBT)

    4 Affect(Heroic): Jungian ( Archetypes as proxies for traits) (german, sympathetic)

    1. Defect:(Victim)Freudian Analysis (feminine conformity) (Jewish feminine)

    This series begins with the most precise but least experiential and moves to the least precise but must experiential. Personally I would prefer, that we use the above series just like the series math, physics, chemistry, biology, cooperation (sentience/economics), speech (negotiation), that we all knew the hierarchy of those from the most physical to the most experiential, and as such that we understood how each expresses a more fictional but more experiential grammar as we proceed down that list. This series is as important as: 1. The hierarchy of Measurements (mathematics) 2. The hierarchy of States of Matter (physical science) 3. The hierarchy of Grammars (language) 4. The hierarchy of Knowledge (aristotelian categories)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553441775 Timestamp) IN CASE YOU MISSED IT … FRAMES OF PEOPLES (important) (read this) Continental vs Scandinavian vs Anglo thought, (vs Latin and Orthodox thought for that matter). —“It’s just been a challenge suggesting to [Curt] that declarative constructs are not how morality is actually processed.”–Josh Jeppson It’s not how it’s processed. I agree. Its however how it is CALCULATED. (a) this is forever going to be a debate between occult semitic supernatural, the continental(german) phenomenalistic and the scientific (scandinavian) anglo, and as far as I know tells us nothing other than the amount of time under semitic (church) influence (rule) and the demand for obedience between island (scandinavian/athenian naval security), and territorial (germanic/spartan army vulnerability), or the imperial (Roman Anglo/Germanic-American power confidence) (b) So the demand for Scientific Rules of Dispute resolution (American), Conformity of Values(Scandinavian), and Conformity of Thought value and deed (German), is determined by the environment for certain. By habituation (tradition) over time out of consequence. By genetics over longer time by rates of reproduction and eugenic suppression. (c) And while we EVOLVE a system to satisfy that demand (cheap law of engineering, more expensive law of norms, and very expensive law of thought word and deed), the system of rules one implements need not be limited to the means under which it evolved, any more than reason, measurement (math) and science (testimony) need be limited to those who evolved it. (d) My understanding is that one writes law (science) by calculation, one teaches norms (public experience) by imitation of rules, and one indoctrinates into thoughts (education) by parable. ie: Specific Formulae, General Rules, Loose Parables. (e) we develop ‘values’ in response to internal trust and external security. These are adaptations. A russian, a Pole, an Italian, a Frenchman, a German, a Dane, an Anglo, an Australian, and an American develop values suited to our condition. However, we assumed these are CHOSEN, and we assume their method of communication must be non-rational. Neither is true.

  • (FB 1553440354 Timestamp) Quote by Michael Abbott CurtD: Correct. Although, we c

    (FB 1553440354 Timestamp) Quote by Michael Abbott CurtD: Correct. Although, we can say, conversely, that both freudian theory, and feminine strategy, are genetic expressions of the same interests, and that neither freud nor woman chooses their strategy, but is an animal barely conscious, and simply following baser instinct.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553440216 Timestamp) War, Like Truth, Knows No Mercy. Revel in it.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553432836 Timestamp) In Jewish Libertarian parlance, the State is a Euphemism for White People.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553442870 Timestamp) THE SERIES OF GRAMMARS PSYCHOLOGY (important) (read this) —“is there any smaller sphere in which you think psychoanalysis is an appropriate method or inquiry? (ie, hopefully the one it is intended for – personal therapy rather than public argumentation).”— Gerard I think that it is always better to use this series:

    1. Means: Personality traits and reward systems. (anglo/physical)

    2. Cause: Acquisitionism and Propertarianism.(masculine/objective)

    3. Training: Stoicism (Acquisition of virtues by CBT)

    4 Affect(Heroic): Jungian ( Archetypes as proxies for traits) (german, sympathetic)

    1. Defect:(Victim)Freudian Analysis (feminine conformity) (Jewish feminine)

    This series begins with the most precise but least experiential and moves to the least precise but must experiential. Personally I would prefer, that we use the above series just like the series math, physics, chemistry, biology, cooperation (sentience/economics), speech (negotiation), that we all knew the hierarchy of those from the most physical to the most experiential, and as such that we understood how each expresses a more fictional but more experiential grammar as we proceed down that list. This series is as important as: 1. The hierarchy of Measurements (mathematics) 2. The hierarchy of States of Matter (physical science) 3. The hierarchy of Grammars (language) 4. The hierarchy of Knowledge (aristotelian categories)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553400682 Timestamp) ummm.. language consists of a stream of continuous recursive disambiguation consisting of what we would call stories of changes in state, culminating in a series 1.comprehension, 2.agreement/disagreement, 3.warranty of due diligence. (limiting) When you say ‘declarative’ i use the term more common in the philosophy of science ‘promissory’, and when duly diligent ‘testimonial’. So your term ‘declarative’ means opinion, the mainstream considers it promissory, and I consider it testimonial. The difference between these three claims is demand. Language satisfies DEMAND for INFALLIBILITY in the given circumstance. THe market for due diligence increases as externalities to the speech increase. This is demonstrated everywhere in all walks of life. It’s not an opinion it’s the evidence.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553441775 Timestamp) IN CASE YOU MISSED IT … FRAMES OF PEOPLES (important) (read this) Continental vs Scandinavian vs Anglo thought, (vs Latin and Orthodox thought for that matter). —“It’s just been a challenge suggesting to [Curt] that declarative constructs are not how morality is actually processed.”–Josh Jeppson It’s not how it’s processed. I agree. Its however how it is CALCULATED. (a) this is forever going to be a debate between occult semitic supernatural, the continental(german) phenomenalistic and the scientific (scandinavian) anglo, and as far as I know tells us nothing other than the amount of time under semitic (church) influence (rule) and the demand for obedience between island (scandinavian/athenian naval security), and territorial (germanic/spartan army vulnerability), or the imperial (Roman Anglo/Germanic-American power confidence) (b) So the demand for Scientific Rules of Dispute resolution (American), Conformity of Values(Scandinavian), and Conformity of Thought value and deed (German), is determined by the environment for certain. By habituation (tradition) over time out of consequence. By genetics over longer time by rates of reproduction and eugenic suppression. (c) And while we EVOLVE a system to satisfy that demand (cheap law of engineering, more expensive law of norms, and very expensive law of thought word and deed), the system of rules one implements need not be limited to the means under which it evolved, any more than reason, measurement (math) and science (testimony) need be limited to those who evolved it. (d) My understanding is that one writes law (science) by calculation, one teaches norms (public experience) by imitation of rules, and one indoctrinates into thoughts (education) by parable. ie: Specific Formulae, General Rules, Loose Parables. (e) we develop ‘values’ in response to internal trust and external security. These are adaptations. A russian, a Pole, an Italian, a Frenchman, a German, a Dane, an Anglo, an Australian, and an American develop values suited to our condition. However, we assumed these are CHOSEN, and we assume their method of communication must be non-rational. Neither is true.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1553394726 Timestamp) WATCH AND LEARN