Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Religion Is Explicable By Scientific Analysis.

    Sorry. Just Is. No Magic Necessary. No Superstition Necessary. No Lies Necessary. 1) myth=history/heroes, 2) ritual=plays/stoicism 3) festivals=sports/holidays/feasts

    That the ancients used primitive concepts in all walks of life where we no longer do is simply an artifact of the process of accumulating particular rather than analogistic knowledge. What makes people feel spiritual is literally the combination of: 0) a narrative that provides common decidability on tie breakers that support our group evolutionary strategy 1) what we think of meditation or prayer in which we are free to be honest with ourselves, 2) the chant/fire/group prayer where we feel the pack response in safety, 3) the play/church/school/temple where we feel the pack response in narrative, 4) the feast/festival/sport where we feel the pack response in ‘celebration’. 5) war/competition where we draw upon all of the above. Spirituality (elation,safety) is produced by the pack response. Spiritual euporia (in all it’s names) is produced by the intellectual equivalent of abandonment of all ‘concerns’. But these ‘effects’ are achievable by multiple means, both shinto/stoic/buddhist personal ritual, group prayer or storytelling ritual, team sport and festival ritual, and martial and funeral ritual.

  • Is Male Bonding The Source Of Civilization?

    (hmmm… well, lets do a propertarian analysis of that question)—“How do you feel about mannerbunds?”—Harrison Baker

    Well you know, I tend to stay away from silly terminology and instead make operationally testable statements. men evolved to work in groups of brothers to herd women, hold territory, and kill competitors and take their stuff. this requires both cooperation: shared risk, and loyalty: elimination of defectors and parasites, and a division of spoils preserving both cooperation, loyalty, and the punishment of defectors and cheats. civilization is the result of teh accumulated knowledge and institutions that allow us to scale this system to ever larger and ever more competitive circumstances. in this sense, yes, the bond between men that we traditionally call the ‘intitiatic brotherhood of soldiers’ is in fact, the source of what we call ‘civilization’: cooperation at very large scales. But we could just as likely say that it’s the need for men to bind to herd women and hold territory and develop institutions that is the source of civilization. or we could say that it is man’s reaction to the untrustworthiness of women that is the origin of civilization since all we do is invent better farms in which to herd our women at lower cost to us. Or we could say that women are untrustworthy in order to force us to build good farms (nests) for them in which they can nest. And that it is women’s untrustworthiness that forces us to cooperate and create nesting areas for them. Roll that little model around in your head for a while? 😉 Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Is Male Bonding The Source Of Civilization?

    (hmmm… well, lets do a propertarian analysis of that question)—“How do you feel about mannerbunds?”—Harrison Baker

    Well you know, I tend to stay away from silly terminology and instead make operationally testable statements. men evolved to work in groups of brothers to herd women, hold territory, and kill competitors and take their stuff. this requires both cooperation: shared risk, and loyalty: elimination of defectors and parasites, and a division of spoils preserving both cooperation, loyalty, and the punishment of defectors and cheats. civilization is the result of teh accumulated knowledge and institutions that allow us to scale this system to ever larger and ever more competitive circumstances. in this sense, yes, the bond between men that we traditionally call the ‘intitiatic brotherhood of soldiers’ is in fact, the source of what we call ‘civilization’: cooperation at very large scales. But we could just as likely say that it’s the need for men to bind to herd women and hold territory and develop institutions that is the source of civilization. or we could say that it is man’s reaction to the untrustworthiness of women that is the origin of civilization since all we do is invent better farms in which to herd our women at lower cost to us. Or we could say that women are untrustworthy in order to force us to build good farms (nests) for them in which they can nest. And that it is women’s untrustworthiness that forces us to cooperate and create nesting areas for them. Roll that little model around in your head for a while? 😉 Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Definitions: Domestication vs Infantilization

    DOMESTICATION: The use of institutions to delay and reduce sexual maturity through intergenerational selection. (the reduction of impulsivity – largely through the reduction of testosterone and estrogen.) –vs– INFANTILIZATION: The use of information to delay and reduce cognitive ability – largely through the distribution of disinformation.

    Today’s youth have been infantilized, and too many are from undomesticated reproductive lines. A spartan is domesticated but the opposite of infantilized.

  • Definitions: Domestication vs Infantilization

    DOMESTICATION: The use of institutions to delay and reduce sexual maturity through intergenerational selection. (the reduction of impulsivity – largely through the reduction of testosterone and estrogen.) –vs– INFANTILIZATION: The use of information to delay and reduce cognitive ability – largely through the distribution of disinformation.

    Today’s youth have been infantilized, and too many are from undomesticated reproductive lines. A spartan is domesticated but the opposite of infantilized.

  • Intellectual History In A Nutshell

    0) THE BIRTH OF THE WEST: SOVEREIGNTY. COUNTER-REVOLUTIONS 1) RELIGION: THE FIRST INFANTILIZATION OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS. (corrected with aristotelian reason, stoic and roman law)

    2) CHRISTIANITY: THE FIRST INFANTILIZATION OF THE WESTERN INDO-EUROPEANS (corrected with empiricism, and anglo common law) 3) COSMOPOLITANISM: THE SECOND INFANTILIZATION OF THE WEST. AND THE NEW WEST. (corrected with testimonialism, and propertarian natural law) WHY IS IT WE MUST DE-INFANTILIZE MAN IN EVERY GREAT ERA?

  • Intellectual History In A Nutshell

    0) THE BIRTH OF THE WEST: SOVEREIGNTY. COUNTER-REVOLUTIONS 1) RELIGION: THE FIRST INFANTILIZATION OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS. (corrected with aristotelian reason, stoic and roman law)

    2) CHRISTIANITY: THE FIRST INFANTILIZATION OF THE WESTERN INDO-EUROPEANS (corrected with empiricism, and anglo common law) 3) COSMOPOLITANISM: THE SECOND INFANTILIZATION OF THE WEST. AND THE NEW WEST. (corrected with testimonialism, and propertarian natural law) WHY IS IT WE MUST DE-INFANTILIZE MAN IN EVERY GREAT ERA?

  • The Western Transcendent Series

    1) SOVEREIGNTY (leads to) 2) MARKETS IN EVERYTHING, (leads to) 3) DEFLATIONARY/DECONFLATIONARY, (leads to) 4) REASON, RATIONALISM, EMPIRICISM, TESTIMONIALISM (leads to) 5) TRUTH: PERFECT PARSIMONY (leads to) 6) TRANSCENDENCE.

  • The Western Transcendent Series

    1) SOVEREIGNTY (leads to) 2) MARKETS IN EVERYTHING, (leads to) 3) DEFLATIONARY/DECONFLATIONARY, (leads to) 4) REASON, RATIONALISM, EMPIRICISM, TESTIMONIALISM (leads to) 5) TRUTH: PERFECT PARSIMONY (leads to) 6) TRANSCENDENCE.

  • Why Is Religion – Meaning Myth And Ritual – Necessary?

    —“Why are mythology and ritual necessary?”—Doug Decidability, opportunity costs and transaction costs.

    —“??????”—Doug We coordinate our actions a little bit by clear deliberate choices. But mostly we cooperate by many thousands of tie-breakers that we default to loose theories of the ‘good’: narratives. In other words, religions provide means by which, in those many thousands of choices, where no choice is preferable to us, to prefer the choice that contributes to the advancement of the commons. Otherwise like Bouridan’s Ass we must find some method of choosing. This insight is profoundly important. Think of religions as a wishing well into which we toss the spare change of choice. But these choices reflect a group evolutionary strategy. And these strategies are not equal. THE MANY SMALL DEFEAT THE FEW GRAND.