Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • A Reminder: “I Don’t Hate on Anyone.”

    I’m not anti anyone at all. I’m not a racist in particular. I’m anti parasitism in all its forms, particularly falsehoods. I’m anti-folly. And I’m anti-conflict. Now, Natural Law of cooperation that we call ‘reciprocity’ tells us what NOT to do. So I end up writing a lot of “Reprimands” (as a follower explained recently.) And I write reprimands of pretty much group on earth – particularly my own. Where I come from is this: There was, that I know of, only one enlightenment – that of Britain – and it was purely empirical. Every culture, in response, has resisted that empirical enlightenment. If we were at the end of the french or german or russian counter-enlightenments, I would attack them. but the french, the germans, and the Russians (or at least the jewish Russians) committed suicide. At present we are at the end of the American Christian, and Ashkenazi-jewish counter-enlightenemtns, and in the midst of the Muslim counter-enlightenments. So of course, my work will place greater emphasis on current examples of interest in the current era, than it will on the french, german, and russian. And of course, I criticize the chinese and indian civilizations as well. Now, empirically, I have to accept that the fundamental problem all civilizations face is the underclass, and that all present, past, and even more so future, questions will be determined by how we answer the fundamental problem of the ‘drag’ that the underclasses place upon mankind. And I understand that this is a difficult problem. But that single problem is solved by soft eugenics: one child policy for the unproductive, and paying them to have either one child only or no children at all. This will, as a consequence attach status to having multiple children, and … attach lack of status to those with wealth that do not. And this is the only solution I know of that is achieved by reciprocity under natural law. So if I offend you then you must answer these questions differently. And you will, of necessity, have a very difficult time finding a better method of calculating a happy prosperous mankind without entering into hubris or deceit.
    Apr 04, 2018 11:17am

  • More People Are Mentally Ill than Is Obvious

    Far more people are mentally ill than is obvious from daily discourse. The principle reason is that they are vastly under socialized and their less than able minds are not constrained by continuous training under pressure of peers. Americans are de facto crazy, where other peoples are de facto escapist, religious, or superstitious. This is because we have attributed to and demanded from ordinary people the agency of the middle, upper middle and upper classes. And the fact is that the reason people are in the middle and upper classes is precisely because they possess agency that others do not.

  • More People Are Mentally Ill than Is Obvious

    Far more people are mentally ill than is obvious from daily discourse. The principle reason is that they are vastly under socialized and their less than able minds are not constrained by continuous training under pressure of peers. Americans are de facto crazy, where other peoples are de facto escapist, religious, or superstitious. This is because we have attributed to and demanded from ordinary people the agency of the middle, upper middle and upper classes. And the fact is that the reason people are in the middle and upper classes is precisely because they possess agency that others do not.

  • No “Woo” Stoicism Reading List

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/197974064X/ STOICISM READING LIST (the no “Wooo” list) THE ART OF WAR (Yes, start here) CURRENT CONTEXT PETERSON AURELIUS CICERO SENECA EPICTETUS NIETZSCHE https://www.amazon.co.uk/Will-Power-Penguin-Classics/dp/0141195355/

  • No “Woo” Stoicism Reading List

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/197974064X/ STOICISM READING LIST (the no “Wooo” list) THE ART OF WAR (Yes, start here) CURRENT CONTEXT PETERSON AURELIUS CICERO SENECA EPICTETUS NIETZSCHE https://www.amazon.co.uk/Will-Power-Penguin-Classics/dp/0141195355/

  • The Dirty Secret of Western Civilization

    The dirty secret of western civilization is that while we invented Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Natural Law,and Market Politics that gave us reason and science, we started out as cattle raiders, pirates, and conquerors, and all the ‘goods’ that we gave the world were an accidental byproduct of the only means of governing voluntary organizations of warriors, raiders, pirates, and conquerors: entrepreneurs.

  • The Dirty Secret of Western Civilization

    The dirty secret of western civilization is that while we invented Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Natural Law,and Market Politics that gave us reason and science, we started out as cattle raiders, pirates, and conquerors, and all the ‘goods’ that we gave the world were an accidental byproduct of the only means of governing voluntary organizations of warriors, raiders, pirates, and conquerors: entrepreneurs.

  • Known Criticisms of The Work

    (repost) It’s not like my work isn’t open to criticism. The whole point of doing work in public is to attract criticism in order to improve the work. Friends, followers, and lurkers have been incredibly helpful and contributed significantly to my ‘community’ project: propertarianism. The correct criticisms of my work are: 1 – it’s not published (that’s true). 2 – it’s not finished in complete enough form that you can understand it without following me for a while. (That’s True.) 3 – I conflate (not on purpose) metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (decidability), with political advocacy (market government) with the cause of western civilization (aryanism: heroism, truth, promise(contract), sovereignty, rule by voluntary reciprocity, and markets in everything as a consequence). This confuses people. It’s a good criticism. 4 – Law (decidability) isn’t ‘enough’ for pedagogy (meaning), and people need religion: ritual and myth. (intuition). This is true. But one of my open research questions is this: is nature, history of family, and history of real heroes, and the truth enough if wrapped in ritual and festival? Can we have a ‘religion without lies’. And I think the answer is yes. The problem is, that’s an entirely different scope of work. And I don’t engage in the pragmatism of conflating the via negativa of law (truth) and the via-positiva of education (religion). So in keeping with the competition between via-positiva and via-negativa my intention is to produce two works, the first law, the second, ‘religion’. I have had this intention for a very long time. I don’t see how to avoid it. I had originally intended to incorporate the law in the CENTER of the ‘religious’ prose with fables in the beginning and history at the end. But that would lead to a ridiculously large tome no one could possibly carry around (i’ve tried). It is possible to condense the scientific content into a constitution of Natural Law (‘the law’) and place that in the center between myth and history. And so I might do that (if I live long enough). But I don’t want to conflate using pragmatism, the necessary competition between very clear truth, and very clear wisdom. That would only continue to duplicate the CRIME of the Abrahamists. 5 – It’s not sufficiently explanatory. Well it is actually and that’s what will horrify you as all your sacred cows are slaughtered without mercy. My work consists of constant relations from physics through sentience. And it’s as dehumanizing as was darwin, copernicus, and aristotle. 6 – It’s pretty counter-intuitive, and hard to understand, because of the terminology. (this is true. but because I must create a universal language of decidability across all fields of human knowledge, I pulled the best term from each field, deflated it, arranged them in series, and this ‘competition’ caused extraordinary narrowing of meaning ( ergo, vast increases in precision). So just as eliminating the divine from argument to gain greater precision we eliminate conflation from argument to gain greater precision. 7 – There are no known technical criticisms. The truth is, that I do not know of any technical criticism of my work and I am seriously doubtful that there will exist any such criticisms – ever. It will take you a very long time to understand why. The reason is, that while I am writing in prose form, the thought process I use is procedural testing of relational calculus. (that’s what databases do). Just as I write law in the language of philosophy using the methods of science. It will be very hard to criticize what I have done here. As far as I know it is not possible. And I am an exhaustive analyst. But the fact that you don’t understand algebraic geometry, understand formal logic, Understand relational calculus, understand algorithms, or understand testimonialism’s dimensional grammar that depends upon definitions in the form of relational calculus, is just a lack of familiarity with the grammar. And I don’t write everything formally. I start with quick sketches, and when I’m done, I should end up with little more than one or more series of dimensional definitions, with all the ‘meaning’ deducible from that set of definitions. Once I have that then I iterate on explaining it until I get as close as possible to aphorisms if I am lucky or operational proofs otherwise, and sometimes I just resort to a narrative that make use of the terms in order to provide context. In other words, I’m writing PROGRAMS, and text is just inline documentation for definitions that perform functions.
    Apr 04, 2018 2:34pm

  • Known Criticisms of The Work

    (repost) It’s not like my work isn’t open to criticism. The whole point of doing work in public is to attract criticism in order to improve the work. Friends, followers, and lurkers have been incredibly helpful and contributed significantly to my ‘community’ project: propertarianism. The correct criticisms of my work are: 1 – it’s not published (that’s true). 2 – it’s not finished in complete enough form that you can understand it without following me for a while. (That’s True.) 3 – I conflate (not on purpose) metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (decidability), with political advocacy (market government) with the cause of western civilization (aryanism: heroism, truth, promise(contract), sovereignty, rule by voluntary reciprocity, and markets in everything as a consequence). This confuses people. It’s a good criticism. 4 – Law (decidability) isn’t ‘enough’ for pedagogy (meaning), and people need religion: ritual and myth. (intuition). This is true. But one of my open research questions is this: is nature, history of family, and history of real heroes, and the truth enough if wrapped in ritual and festival? Can we have a ‘religion without lies’. And I think the answer is yes. The problem is, that’s an entirely different scope of work. And I don’t engage in the pragmatism of conflating the via negativa of law (truth) and the via-positiva of education (religion). So in keeping with the competition between via-positiva and via-negativa my intention is to produce two works, the first law, the second, ‘religion’. I have had this intention for a very long time. I don’t see how to avoid it. I had originally intended to incorporate the law in the CENTER of the ‘religious’ prose with fables in the beginning and history at the end. But that would lead to a ridiculously large tome no one could possibly carry around (i’ve tried). It is possible to condense the scientific content into a constitution of Natural Law (‘the law’) and place that in the center between myth and history. And so I might do that (if I live long enough). But I don’t want to conflate using pragmatism, the necessary competition between very clear truth, and very clear wisdom. That would only continue to duplicate the CRIME of the Abrahamists. 5 – It’s not sufficiently explanatory. Well it is actually and that’s what will horrify you as all your sacred cows are slaughtered without mercy. My work consists of constant relations from physics through sentience. And it’s as dehumanizing as was darwin, copernicus, and aristotle. 6 – It’s pretty counter-intuitive, and hard to understand, because of the terminology. (this is true. but because I must create a universal language of decidability across all fields of human knowledge, I pulled the best term from each field, deflated it, arranged them in series, and this ‘competition’ caused extraordinary narrowing of meaning ( ergo, vast increases in precision). So just as eliminating the divine from argument to gain greater precision we eliminate conflation from argument to gain greater precision. 7 – There are no known technical criticisms. The truth is, that I do not know of any technical criticism of my work and I am seriously doubtful that there will exist any such criticisms – ever. It will take you a very long time to understand why. The reason is, that while I am writing in prose form, the thought process I use is procedural testing of relational calculus. (that’s what databases do). Just as I write law in the language of philosophy using the methods of science. It will be very hard to criticize what I have done here. As far as I know it is not possible. And I am an exhaustive analyst. But the fact that you don’t understand algebraic geometry, understand formal logic, Understand relational calculus, understand algorithms, or understand testimonialism’s dimensional grammar that depends upon definitions in the form of relational calculus, is just a lack of familiarity with the grammar. And I don’t write everything formally. I start with quick sketches, and when I’m done, I should end up with little more than one or more series of dimensional definitions, with all the ‘meaning’ deducible from that set of definitions. Once I have that then I iterate on explaining it until I get as close as possible to aphorisms if I am lucky or operational proofs otherwise, and sometimes I just resort to a narrative that make use of the terms in order to provide context. In other words, I’m writing PROGRAMS, and text is just inline documentation for definitions that perform functions.
    Apr 04, 2018 2:34pm

  • Four Africas

    FOUR AFRICAS If you look at Africa, North Africa developed rapidly under the Egyptians and Phoenicians, and only failed under islam. If you look at west africa, it sure looks like civilization should have taken off there, and the only thing I can see so far is (a) limited productivity of the territory meaning high cost of administration, (b) lack of eurasian or south american domesticated animals and vegetables, (c) painful disease gradients, and (d) isolation from trade once they reached sufficient scale, that they needed eurasian technology from others to continue scale. I’m just too ignorant still to understand. But it looks like a ‘Jared Diamond’ argument there. If you look at east africa, the two red sea routes (the isthmus across the south, and the river at the north) this territory was ‘hostile and unexplored’ and the trade route poorly usd until roman times (and was prime booty for islam). If you look at the territory between east and west africa, and between east africa and the highlands of southern africa, these regions are just too costly to transit for trade – especially in comparison to the mediterranean. I mean, geography is just … damn, africa is HUGE. The route across the isthmus like that between alaska and siberia was walkable or at least open to simple migration out of africa. The semitic peoples (i think) developed out of west eurasians on this land bridge route, then moved north, and once the semitic peoples developed they migrated southward and established kingdoms in the horn of africa. (the one that is now slowly splitting off of africa to form a large island as big as the british isles.) Even once horses were introduced, the climate is not beneficial for raising horses (especially compared to mongolia or the european plain). Trade tended to round the west coast rather than cross the center. Meaning that trade with west africa was prohibitively distant until the age of sail. —“cavalryman in West Africa ultimately lost out to the musketeer. Firearms were not only, eventually, a more efficient arm of warfare: they were also very much cheaper than horses. The same happened in Asia, of course: but perhaps not quite so inevitability. For a very long time firearms were inferior both in range and rate of fire to the Turkish compound bow. The Tatars of the Crimea were still, in the seventeenth century, raiding effectively in Eastern Europe against the opposition of field artillery and troops armed with muskets. And western writers on Ottoman expansion have tended to lay too much emphasis on the Janissaries – infantry musketeers – as against the Ottomans’ more significant light cavalry. But gunpowder had nevertheless sounded the death-knell of the mounted archer’s invincibility. In West Africa the heyday of the cavalryman lasted for a much shorter period than in Asia – not more than five centuries”— Still have to study each of these west african empires, because it sure looks like there was sufficient mass there.
    Apr 04, 2018 6:30pm