Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Poetic Expression Is Art – And Expensive

    –“Not quite sure what you are trying to win and all the big words obscure things so that it all seems a fog to me. I like your poems so much more that are plain and simple but say so much…”– Kerry

    Kerry, there are things that I can easily express as experiences, and things that are extremely difficult to express as experiences. I know it’s better to express anything as experiences. But I start out with these things that are very abstract, and work, usually over months, by trial and error, to reduce them to something that’s simple and insightful – and hopefully aphoristic. But to convert something like that to poetic and experiential form requires almost as long as it takes to reduce it to aphorism. For many people, experiential intuition is a very important vehicle for meaning – for confirming the true. But I work largely with ideas that are counter-intuitive (not obvious). And much of human experience requires we seek the compromise of nash equilibria and pareto efficiency, not what we most desire – and most intuit.

  • Sad Revelations And The End Of Hero Worship

    [I] just realized the my intellectual hero is not interested in liberty, he is interested in obtaining status by demonstrating that he is an alpha. Libertarianism was just a vehicle for demonstrating it. And that is why his arguments are so heavily loaded and framed. Sure, there is also valuable content there, but it is obscured by signal seeking, sycophancy, ridicule, empty verbalism, anti-empiricism, deceptive framing, shoddy selective reasoning, and obscurantist fallacy. So apparently one can learn a lot about the method of argument from Marxists if you study them. By contrast, I don’t matter. I don’t need to earn a living from my philosophical work. I’ve obtained my status already – and frankly I’d rather live simply having done it. My goal is not recognition, not status, but to obtain liberty. This is war for the soul if not survival of the west. I’m just a warrior. And I want to win. Not just for me, but for all of us.

  • Sad Revelations And The End Of Hero Worship

    [I] just realized the my intellectual hero is not interested in liberty, he is interested in obtaining status by demonstrating that he is an alpha. Libertarianism was just a vehicle for demonstrating it. And that is why his arguments are so heavily loaded and framed. Sure, there is also valuable content there, but it is obscured by signal seeking, sycophancy, ridicule, empty verbalism, anti-empiricism, deceptive framing, shoddy selective reasoning, and obscurantist fallacy. So apparently one can learn a lot about the method of argument from Marxists if you study them. By contrast, I don’t matter. I don’t need to earn a living from my philosophical work. I’ve obtained my status already – and frankly I’d rather live simply having done it. My goal is not recognition, not status, but to obtain liberty. This is war for the soul if not survival of the west. I’m just a warrior. And I want to win. Not just for me, but for all of us.

  • Different Disciplines Ordered by Their Content

    (interesting) 1) Imagination 2) Language 3) Logic 4) Economics (ethics/cooperation) 5) Physics (science) 6) Engineering 7) Computer science 8) Mathematics

  • Different Disciplines Ordered by Their Content

    (interesting) 1) Imagination 2) Language 3) Logic 4) Economics (ethics/cooperation) 5) Physics (science) 6) Engineering 7) Computer science 8) Mathematics

  • Choices: Conflict, Boycott, and Cooperation

    [W]e can fail to agree, and conflict with one another. We can agree to boycott (avoid) one another. Or we can agree to cooperate with one another. In any rational exchange for cooperation and trust, we require the positive assertion of the requirement of production, and the negative assertion of the prohibition on free riding. Cooperation is not rational without this requirement, in both positive and negative forms. In some cases we tolerate intertemporal gains and losses in the expectation that the net outcome will be to our favor. For the weak, cooperation or boycott, are to be agreed upon at all costs, even if parasitic, since the weak are unable to fight. For the strong, conquest, cooperation and boycott are merely a choice between preferences, where cooperation can often provide the greatest return. Power and weakness produce different metaphysical assumptions and logical biases. See Power and Weakness by Robert Kagan http://files.janjires.webnode.cz/200000472-2879a29738/Robert%20Kagan%20-%20Power%20and%20Weakness.pdf

  • Choices: Conflict, Boycott, and Cooperation

    [W]e can fail to agree, and conflict with one another. We can agree to boycott (avoid) one another. Or we can agree to cooperate with one another. In any rational exchange for cooperation and trust, we require the positive assertion of the requirement of production, and the negative assertion of the prohibition on free riding. Cooperation is not rational without this requirement, in both positive and negative forms. In some cases we tolerate intertemporal gains and losses in the expectation that the net outcome will be to our favor. For the weak, cooperation or boycott, are to be agreed upon at all costs, even if parasitic, since the weak are unable to fight. For the strong, conquest, cooperation and boycott are merely a choice between preferences, where cooperation can often provide the greatest return. Power and weakness produce different metaphysical assumptions and logical biases. See Power and Weakness by Robert Kagan http://files.janjires.webnode.cz/200000472-2879a29738/Robert%20Kagan%20-%20Power%20and%20Weakness.pdf

  • Worth Repeating

    **If you can’t state it operationally, then it’s merely an analogy. Analogies are informative, but they are not truth propositions.**

  • Worth Repeating

    **If you can’t state it operationally, then it’s merely an analogy. Analogies are informative, but they are not truth propositions.**

  • Against Justified True Belief – Toward Ethical Speech Instead

    [J]ustified true belief is not an important question – it is purely utilitarian. Your belief is not an ethical question. Your testimony is however, an ethical question. . You may believe whatever you have knowledge of use of. But you may not testify that you know that which you cannot construct in operational language.