Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Why Do We Teach Religion? Cost, Breadth, and Error (But Myths are Better)

    WHY? DO WE TEACH RELIGION? COST AND ERROR. – Myth must only be envisioned and accepted. – Philosophy must be reasoned and understood to be envisioned and accepted. – Science must be measured, reasoned, and understood, to be envisioned and accepted.

    1) Myths are easier to teach than measurement, calculation and reason. 2) Myths are false in that they are mere analogies, but having stood thd test of time they produce ‘true’ or ‘correspondent’ actions. 3) it is easy commit error with measurement, calculation, and reason – and hard in myth. Why? That which we convey by myth requires only analogy to experience. That which we must measure calculate and reason is de facto outside of our direct experience. In other words, there is more falsehood but less error in religion. Along the same lines: Why do we possess these forms of ethics: instinctual, imitated, mythical, virtue, rule, and outcome? Answer: Pedagogy. Why do we possess fairy tails, myths and legends, history, literature, and philosophy? Answer: Pedagogy. Why do we teach arithmetic, mathematics, geometry, calculus, non-euclidean geometry, and statistics? Answer: Pedagogy. Why do we argue with one another using emotive approval and disapproval, morality, reason, rationalism, historical analogy, empirical evidence(direct), economic evidence(indirect), and ratio-operational-empirical argument? Answer? ABILITY

  • Liberty? Let me help you…. Only if you Rule.

    You possess Liberty when you rule – else you have but permission. The purpose of rule is to prevent others from ruling – so that you possess Liberty in fact not permission. But this condition can only survive if you have numbers sufficient to deny competitors the ability to rule. But to work together in numbers we require means of cooperating and means of dispute resolution. But these means cannot allow for discretion or we would no longer possess Liberty. To solve this problem we cooperate using productive fully informed warrantied voluntary exchange. To resolve differences we use rule of natural, judge-discovered common law. So we create a condition of Liberty by creating a condition of sovereignty, by cooperating via fully informed warrantied productive voluntary exchange, and resolving disputes by natural judge discovered common law under which we demand contribution to their defense and restitution for offense. And punish, enslave, remove, or kill those who do attempt to create any condition other than Liberty.

  • Liberty? Let me help you…. Only if you Rule.

    You possess Liberty when you rule – else you have but permission. The purpose of rule is to prevent others from ruling – so that you possess Liberty in fact not permission. But this condition can only survive if you have numbers sufficient to deny competitors the ability to rule. But to work together in numbers we require means of cooperating and means of dispute resolution. But these means cannot allow for discretion or we would no longer possess Liberty. To solve this problem we cooperate using productive fully informed warrantied voluntary exchange. To resolve differences we use rule of natural, judge-discovered common law. So we create a condition of Liberty by creating a condition of sovereignty, by cooperating via fully informed warrantied productive voluntary exchange, and resolving disputes by natural judge discovered common law under which we demand contribution to their defense and restitution for offense. And punish, enslave, remove, or kill those who do attempt to create any condition other than Liberty.

  • Was Alexander Great? Much More So Than Historians Give Him Credit For

    ALEXANDER In the 3500 year old battle between the aristocracy(how we live) and the dictatorship(how most of the world lives) he was the first great general to defeat the first great threat to our civilization (our aristocratic civilization): the Persian Empire, and as a consequence the totalitarianism of the river civilizations, making the world safe for the territorial farming civilizations.

    What you might add to your understanding of history, is that those people who invented Aristocracy invented as a consequence, sovereignty. And the only possible means of decision making under sovereignty: debate, reason, logic, empiricism, and the objective Truth that results from their use; and the only possible institutions of decision making under sovereignty: jury, senate, democracy; And the only possible method of conflict resolution under sovereignty: Natural, judge-discovered, common law. And the methods of organization under sovereignty: a market for production of goods and services; a market for reproduction (marriage); a market for the production of commons (multi-house democratic government); a market for the production of knowledge (science); a market for leadership (election). Despite the west being poorer, less populous, and on the edge of the bronze age, the west advanced faster than the rest of the world in both the ancient athenian(navy)-spartan(army)-roman(industry), and modern anglo(navy)-german(army)-american(industry) eras, because there is no faster way of adapting and innovating than heroism, sovereignty, truth, and markets-in-everything. So Heroism creates the need for Sovereignty, which in turn creates the need for everything the west has achieved that we value. And that is why Alexander Matters. He is the HAND of Aristotle. And the two of them conquered the east in defense of the west. Aristotle conquered mysticism and falsehoods, and Alexander despotism. The west has a very important and unique idea: sovereignty. ASIDE: THE WORD “SOVEREIGNTY” AS USED BY THE CLASSES – Sovereignty : Aristocracy – Organizing the Polity. – Liberty: Burghers – Organizing the Economy. – Freedom: Laborers – Transforming resources – Consumption(‘so called positive freedom’): women, children, and the underclasses Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Was Alexander Great? Much More So Than Historians Give Him Credit For

    ALEXANDER In the 3500 year old battle between the aristocracy(how we live) and the dictatorship(how most of the world lives) he was the first great general to defeat the first great threat to our civilization (our aristocratic civilization): the Persian Empire, and as a consequence the totalitarianism of the river civilizations, making the world safe for the territorial farming civilizations.

    What you might add to your understanding of history, is that those people who invented Aristocracy invented as a consequence, sovereignty. And the only possible means of decision making under sovereignty: debate, reason, logic, empiricism, and the objective Truth that results from their use; and the only possible institutions of decision making under sovereignty: jury, senate, democracy; And the only possible method of conflict resolution under sovereignty: Natural, judge-discovered, common law. And the methods of organization under sovereignty: a market for production of goods and services; a market for reproduction (marriage); a market for the production of commons (multi-house democratic government); a market for the production of knowledge (science); a market for leadership (election). Despite the west being poorer, less populous, and on the edge of the bronze age, the west advanced faster than the rest of the world in both the ancient athenian(navy)-spartan(army)-roman(industry), and modern anglo(navy)-german(army)-american(industry) eras, because there is no faster way of adapting and innovating than heroism, sovereignty, truth, and markets-in-everything. So Heroism creates the need for Sovereignty, which in turn creates the need for everything the west has achieved that we value. And that is why Alexander Matters. He is the HAND of Aristotle. And the two of them conquered the east in defense of the west. Aristotle conquered mysticism and falsehoods, and Alexander despotism. The west has a very important and unique idea: sovereignty. ASIDE: THE WORD “SOVEREIGNTY” AS USED BY THE CLASSES – Sovereignty : Aristocracy – Organizing the Polity. – Liberty: Burghers – Organizing the Economy. – Freedom: Laborers – Transforming resources – Consumption(‘so called positive freedom’): women, children, and the underclasses Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Are Emotions Rational? Why Philosophy Is Good for Deception. And Why I am An Anti-Philosophy Philosopher

    ARE EMOTIONS RATIONAL? AND WHY PHILOSOPHY IS SO SUCCESSFUL IN DECEIT. AND WHY I AM AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHER (read this: very very very important synthesis) (A) as far as I know all emotions reflect a reaction to a change in state of some form of inventory ( property ). ( b) as far as I know all moral intuitions reflect cooperative changes in state to personal or common property ( property in toto ). (C) as far as I know all human cognition is limited to that which can be acquired. (D) as far as I know, that which can be acquired is limited to our ability to act in existential reality. (E) as far as I know we can use reason to inspect memory searches. And that memory searches restimulate emotions. (F) and that the value of our memories is ( amplitude ) is determined by these weights. Emotions are measurements. We may or may not measure optimally. Emotions are not produced by reason even if they can be evoked by reason. So I tend to position emotions as empirical measurements by our sensory system. Trained by experience. Open to retraining by experience. Reason can be used to produce experiences that train or retrain us. Imagining and modeling can be used to produce experiences that train or retrain us. But while emotions can be said to be a logical need for an acting life form. And we can rationally and empirically test that hypothesis with consistent success. Yet we cannot say emotions are produced rationally. We can only say in retrospect that we rationally comprehend the function of those emotions as logically necessary for acting creatures. ALSO this question provides yet another example of the pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be” – creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”. So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures. The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself. We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are are suggestive shortcuts. But when this shortcut us combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution. In other words it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination. This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse. Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man. It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy. Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end. Curt Doolittle.

  • Are Emotions Rational? Why Philosophy Is Good for Deception. And Why I am An Anti-Philosophy Philosopher

    ARE EMOTIONS RATIONAL? AND WHY PHILOSOPHY IS SO SUCCESSFUL IN DECEIT. AND WHY I AM AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHER (read this: very very very important synthesis) (A) as far as I know all emotions reflect a reaction to a change in state of some form of inventory ( property ). ( b) as far as I know all moral intuitions reflect cooperative changes in state to personal or common property ( property in toto ). (C) as far as I know all human cognition is limited to that which can be acquired. (D) as far as I know, that which can be acquired is limited to our ability to act in existential reality. (E) as far as I know we can use reason to inspect memory searches. And that memory searches restimulate emotions. (F) and that the value of our memories is ( amplitude ) is determined by these weights. Emotions are measurements. We may or may not measure optimally. Emotions are not produced by reason even if they can be evoked by reason. So I tend to position emotions as empirical measurements by our sensory system. Trained by experience. Open to retraining by experience. Reason can be used to produce experiences that train or retrain us. Imagining and modeling can be used to produce experiences that train or retrain us. But while emotions can be said to be a logical need for an acting life form. And we can rationally and empirically test that hypothesis with consistent success. Yet we cannot say emotions are produced rationally. We can only say in retrospect that we rationally comprehend the function of those emotions as logically necessary for acting creatures. ALSO this question provides yet another example of the pollution of philosophy with the verb “to be” – creating nonsense problems because our minds do not seem able to avoid the confusion created between experience and existence when we say “is” or “are”. So the vast number of sophistries we falsely categorize as philosophical problems are merely confusions created by the misuse of grammar ( effort discounts ) just as a magician misleads with gestures. The only difference is that the magician knows he deceived others. But the sophist does not know he deceives himself. We evolved to substitute information not existing in speech of others through inference. We also evolved to save effort in thought and speech through suggestion ( shortcuts ). The words is and are are suggestive shortcuts. But when this shortcut us combined in certain permutations it forces the circumvention of reason and the evocation of pre-rational substitution. In other words it forces us out of reason and reality into intuition and imagination. This is the same technique used by storytellers to invoke suspension of disbelief, priests to convince the foolish of the existence of imaginary worlds, and politicians and public intellectuals to lie, and dishonest philosophers to overload, and sophists to confuse. Ergo: any question of philosophy that contains the words is or are and is not stated in operational language is at best sophistry, at worst, the most insidious evils that have ever been let loose on man. It is this understanding that has made me an anti philosophy philosopher and forced me to unite science and philosophy. Because whether religious, political or philosophical, the abuse if these cognitive biases to harm mankind must end. Curt Doolittle.

  • ‘Sovereignty’ In The Language of Each Class

    THE WORD “SOVEREIGNTY” AS USED BY THE CLASSES – Sovereignty : Aristocracy – Organizing the Polity. – Liberty: Burghers – Organizing the Economy. – Freedom: Laborers – Transforming resources – “Positive Freedom”): Consumption: women, children, and the underclasses

  • ‘Sovereignty’ In The Language of Each Class

    THE WORD “SOVEREIGNTY” AS USED BY THE CLASSES – Sovereignty : Aristocracy – Organizing the Polity. – Liberty: Burghers – Organizing the Economy. – Freedom: Laborers – Transforming resources – “Positive Freedom”): Consumption: women, children, and the underclasses

  • Of Course Women are Underrepresented in History – Because We Remeber Extremes, Not Regularities

    (read for some good useful arguments) Women were ineffective at leaving ‘extraordinary’ marks on history for a number of obvious reasons: 1 – Strength, athleticism, bravery, loyalty, and cunning provided marginal differences in groups that made possible disruptions in society. Consensus does not produce change, but regularity. 2 – All progress is achieved through either conquest, competition, or innovation (change in state); and innovation appears to be an almost exclusively masculine achievement – so much so that despite a century of seeking even a single woman we find none equal in theoretical innovation to men, and those women we do find produce empirical insights instead(ie:Ostrom). All innovation is produced at the limits of human abilities. Women dominate the middle and men dominate the extremes. 3 – Rearing five or six children in the pre-modern era is a full time 365 day a year occupation that has occupied them. Unfortunately, women desire attention, and feminists desire political power, so while the soldier and the craftsman grasp that they are as important to the whole as a group as the great man is as an individual; this does not suit the political interests of feminists to assist in overthrowing the aristocratic sovereign meritocratic social order, and restoring the primitivism of the rest of the world. We spent thousands of years producing the compromise of the nuclear family, and one-vote for one-family. This is the optimum compromise position under which neither gets what they most prefer, but most all get the best they can get. The sacrifice we pay for marriage and family is a sacrifice just as taxes, obeying norms and laws, and fighting war are sacrifices we pay for getting the best we can not the best we desire. 4 – The impolitic truth: women are demonstrably far less loyal to the group (willing to bear costs) than men even if they are far more concerned with harmony (social safety for themselves and their offspring). Throughout history women have been considered shallow, petty, duplicitous, traitorous, and impulsive. It was just as hard to domesticate women as it has been to domesticate men. And that domestication was achieved in large part through controlling reproduction (just as we do with animals) using the institution of monogamous marriage first, and the prohibition on cousin marriage later, and aggressively hanging malcontents last. Men evolved to capture and herd women. It was through cooperation and the development of property and family that we came to a compromise between the male ability and desire to herd women, and the female ability and desire to choose mates. Women have a smaller number of closer friends, men a larger number of looser friends. Women never stop trying to gain status among other women. Men seek only to maintain a ‘natural’ status so that they maintain value to the tribe. We have little value for ‘care, affection, and sex’. We have great value for changing the state of the physical world to that which we prefer. Women will cheat on the tribe just as men will cheat on a woman. THis behavior is not at all conscious. WOMEN IN THE FUTURE The current era is coming to a close, and will very likely be remembered in history as the second attempt at hyperconsumption. And that women in leadership positions is evidence of the failure of the men in that civilization, just as it was in the ancient world, just as it is in the modern, and just as it is in board rooms in the largest companies: the fact that women are in charge is merely evidence of the failure of men to create a consensus among men who create a competitive difference. Just as we cannot all be leaders, women do not bear quality children in large numbers, a civilization will die – from having no ‘host’ for its ideas. Men work at the extremes, and we dominate the extremes. Women work at regularities and dominate the regularities. We must teach extremes and incentivize extremes through narratives. We must teach regularities and incentivize regularities by demonstrations. Father extremes, mother regularities. The fact that our genes inspire us to do these things is not surprising. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine