Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • Avoiding a Disgrace

    Feb 11, 2020, 11:06 AM

    —“It is a disgrace to grow old through sheer carelessness before seeing what manner of man you may become by developing your bodily strength and beauty to their highest limit.” —Socrates

    (a reminder via John Papadopoulos)

  • Free Will and Determinism (deterministic Universe)

    Feb 11, 2020, 2:26 PM

    —“Could you say then that free will is a sort of emergent property of determinism?”—Andy Lunn

    Maybe I don’t understand that question enough. We have will. That’s a fact. We evolved for graceful failure in exercise of our will – so that is what we interpret as somtimes lacking free will. We evolved for incremental improvement of our knowledge, and then our will as a consequence. The degree to which we develop our will (ability) into agency (successful application) depends on ability, experience, training and general knowledge. So the question isn’t do we have free will, it’s that we evolved will and the capacity to develop agency with it. But we are limited by our knowledge. We do not appear to be otherwise limited simply because we are so good at building tools that extend our sense, perception and action. Now, within that context, if you mean, that without a deterministic universe (the scientific definition of determinism, not the sophomoric and philosophical definition), then yes, we could never develop agency because there would be no regularity, and without regularity no use for memory, and without memory there would be no use for will reason, or agency. So in that sense, yes. But only in that sense.

  • Free Will and Determinism (deterministic Universe)

    Feb 11, 2020, 2:26 PM

    —“Could you say then that free will is a sort of emergent property of determinism?”—Andy Lunn

    Maybe I don’t understand that question enough. We have will. That’s a fact. We evolved for graceful failure in exercise of our will – so that is what we interpret as somtimes lacking free will. We evolved for incremental improvement of our knowledge, and then our will as a consequence. The degree to which we develop our will (ability) into agency (successful application) depends on ability, experience, training and general knowledge. So the question isn’t do we have free will, it’s that we evolved will and the capacity to develop agency with it. But we are limited by our knowledge. We do not appear to be otherwise limited simply because we are so good at building tools that extend our sense, perception and action. Now, within that context, if you mean, that without a deterministic universe (the scientific definition of determinism, not the sophomoric and philosophical definition), then yes, we could never develop agency because there would be no regularity, and without regularity no use for memory, and without memory there would be no use for will reason, or agency. So in that sense, yes. But only in that sense.

  • Getting to Your Personal Epiphany

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:21 AM

    —“I feel you are missing the archetypal experience description. I get that that could be included in testimonial but feel empirical science/lawful testimony and mystical testimony are two different functions.”—Bill Smith

    Try again. I can sense something there and I probably know how to answer it but I’m not sure.

    —“Scientific experience is summarized in scientific testimonial which leads in the direction of expressions of empirical natural law. … Mystical experience is expressed in poetry, the development of religious structures that send one down a destination-less path and manifestations of the ephemeral like the Runes. … I believe they are different things requiring different metrics and modes of expression and experience.”—Bill Smith

    Correct. The question is, must they be coherent compatible and commensurable even if they are expressed in different grammars: deflationary-scientific vs inflationary-poetic. And my answer is yes. There is no reason for conflict. And it is this conflict that undermines our civlization from within.

    —“If you’re saying what I think you’re saying I’m about to tear up due to the truth you’re conveying… as I’ve never known anyone else who did or even could communicate that fundamental lack intrinsic to our culture.

    That was a powerful experience.

    Actually I think you might have broken me. At least … I hope you did.”—Bill Smith

    Broken means bad? lol. What does that mean? I’m scared.

    —“Broken as in the change in conscious experience of reality due to a distinguishable event or experience but is dependent on previous works or studies.”—

    Ok. “a moment of sudden revelation or insight.” Revelation, Epiphany, Paradigm Shift. (Good. I don’t have to feel guilty all day now. lol -hugs.)

  • An Oath for All of Us

    Feb 24, 2020, 6:35 PM

    —“The revelation: As a man I have a duty to and necessarily a loyalty to men. The world needs men, and it takes men to make men. And I will not dodge that responsibility again.”— A Friend

  • An Oath for All of Us

    Feb 24, 2020, 6:35 PM

    —“The revelation: As a man I have a duty to and necessarily a loyalty to men. The world needs men, and it takes men to make men. And I will not dodge that responsibility again.”— A Friend

  • Freud vs Jung vs Cognitive Science

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:45 AM by Tim Abbott

    —“Tim Abbott : What’s your position on Freud vs Jung, vs Cog Sci?”—CD

    Freud’s main concepts of the mind were non-original, but innovations of prior Greek concepts. The state of human affairs from the Freudian vision are outright lies. I find more utility in Jung. Jungian concepts of an evolving mind and a shared reality that constantly revealing itself via symbols. Cognitive science is a focus on the material world and being able to overcome emotional defects of the mind in order to think in a more rational way once again. I believe in the duality of nature. Materialism and symbolism, and through symbolism the material world can be manipulated. It’s a work in progress. 😐 === (CD: Tim is our go-to guy for psychology)

  • Freud vs Jung vs Cognitive Science

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:45 AM by Tim Abbott

    —“Tim Abbott : What’s your position on Freud vs Jung, vs Cog Sci?”—CD

    Freud’s main concepts of the mind were non-original, but innovations of prior Greek concepts. The state of human affairs from the Freudian vision are outright lies. I find more utility in Jung. Jungian concepts of an evolving mind and a shared reality that constantly revealing itself via symbols. Cognitive science is a focus on the material world and being able to overcome emotional defects of the mind in order to think in a more rational way once again. I believe in the duality of nature. Materialism and symbolism, and through symbolism the material world can be manipulated. It’s a work in progress. 😐 === (CD: Tim is our go-to guy for psychology)

  • Propertarianism is the best case for individualism

    Mar 27, 2020, 11:36 AM

    —“Propertarianism is the best case for individualism as it establishes the costs. Sovereignty requires agency requires the aptitude to incur and manage the costs.”—Rick Tavi

    (CD: Well done. I set out to restore ability, responsibility, un-substitutability, and cost to search for Freedom and Liberty by permission at other’s discretion – resulting in creation of Sovereignty in fact by our decision. I did so because when working on Hoppe I understood argumentation ethics were nonsense. Violence, like boycott, is never, ever, ever off the political table.)

  • Propertarianism is the best case for individualism

    Mar 27, 2020, 11:36 AM

    —“Propertarianism is the best case for individualism as it establishes the costs. Sovereignty requires agency requires the aptitude to incur and manage the costs.”—Rick Tavi

    (CD: Well done. I set out to restore ability, responsibility, un-substitutability, and cost to search for Freedom and Liberty by permission at other’s discretion – resulting in creation of Sovereignty in fact by our decision. I did so because when working on Hoppe I understood argumentation ethics were nonsense. Violence, like boycott, is never, ever, ever off the political table.)