Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • “Why Have Our Marvelous Brains Formulated Two Diametrically Opposite Explanations?”

    Question: “Why have our marvelous brains formulated two diametrically opposite explanations?” Answer: Cognitive Division of Labor: Predator (action, dominance, science) — vs.– Prey (mindfulness, submission, religion). Problem: Demand for mindfulness increases with uncertainty. Post tribal life removes resource uncertainty at the cost of social uncertainty (female herd equality, male pack hierarchy). Scale increases uncertainty. Production cycles decrease availability of positive reinforcement (status signals, fitness signals). Consumerism buys signals, at cost of increase in isolation. Diversity (market polity) increases isolation. Choices: (a) Personal Rituals: Stoicism (Self Authoring) > Sophism (Philosophy) > Pseudoscience (“Church of TED, Marxist Economics”) > Religion (Old Age) > Magic (New Age) > Occult (literature – post-reason). (b) Social Rituals: Hunting > Sport > Commerce > Civic Groups and Clubs > Politics > Religion (academy, media, cult) > Fringe Movements (outcasts) > Occult (‘escapists’). What’s the Underlying Problem? Neural Economy. (Physical Economy(Stress), Emotional Economy (Stress), Neural Economy(stress)). Regularity provides certainty and decreased neural cost. Plenty provides personal decrease in neural cost but increase in cost of collective coherence, consistency, correspondence, and (frame) decidability. In other words, manageable neural cost provides anti-fragility (mindfulness) and suppressed neural cost (infantilization) increases fragility. The problem we face satisfaction of demand for predatory ( consumption, acquisition, opportunity, signals/status) vs prey ( consumption, insurance, certainty, not-sticking-out/equality). Markets (Economy) in everything: Unfortunately we have constructed a cognitive model of monopoly under both universalist abrahamic religion, justificationary philosophy, universal democracy, legislation (rather than tort law), and constructivist mathematics (and positivist logic). Despite the fact that the uniqueness of western civilization’s ‘salvation’ of mankind from superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, endemic violence, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature – was the product of anti-monopoly “Markets in All Walks of Life” under individual sovereignty, tort law of reciprocity, evidentiary (testifiable) truth regardless of cost to face, status, dominance, or competence hierarchy, duty of the commons regardless of station, decision jury, judge and rule of law, leaving the only remaining method of cooperation “as markets in all aspects of life” that resulted in our innovations of reason, empiricism, and science. Ergo, between religion, philosophy, (and that counter-empiricism we call the ‘enlightenment’ and it’s capture of power) democracy, followed by the revision of monopoly Abrahamic Monotheism( judaism, christianity, and islamism), that we call Marxism(Pseudoscience), Socialism(Monopoly Property), Postmodernism (monopoly sophism), and Feminism (monopoly female control vs compromise familial control) – we repeated the same process as the ancient era (resulting in the destruction of every civlization of the ancient world) and attempted in the current era to undermine (destroy) that social order that made our salvation from natural condition possible: non-monopoly markets of competition (calculation) using discovery by trial and error at the cost of soft eugenics (suppression of the reproduction of those who force burden by moral hazard onto others). The questions are one of knowledge and one of choice. Lacking knowledge one cannot make a choice. Possessing knowledge what choice does one (or all) make? The answer is divided between the predator and pack’s preservation, or the prey and herd’s submission. 😉 Maybe that will add to the discourse. 😉 -Cheers

  • “Why Have Our Marvelous Brains Formulated Two Diametrically Opposite Explanations?”

    Question: “Why have our marvelous brains formulated two diametrically opposite explanations?” Answer: Cognitive Division of Labor: Predator (action, dominance, science) — vs.– Prey (mindfulness, submission, religion). Problem: Demand for mindfulness increases with uncertainty. Post tribal life removes resource uncertainty at the cost of social uncertainty (female herd equality, male pack hierarchy). Scale increases uncertainty. Production cycles decrease availability of positive reinforcement (status signals, fitness signals). Consumerism buys signals, at cost of increase in isolation. Diversity (market polity) increases isolation. Choices: (a) Personal Rituals: Stoicism (Self Authoring) > Sophism (Philosophy) > Pseudoscience (“Church of TED, Marxist Economics”) > Religion (Old Age) > Magic (New Age) > Occult (literature – post-reason). (b) Social Rituals: Hunting > Sport > Commerce > Civic Groups and Clubs > Politics > Religion (academy, media, cult) > Fringe Movements (outcasts) > Occult (‘escapists’). What’s the Underlying Problem? Neural Economy. (Physical Economy(Stress), Emotional Economy (Stress), Neural Economy(stress)). Regularity provides certainty and decreased neural cost. Plenty provides personal decrease in neural cost but increase in cost of collective coherence, consistency, correspondence, and (frame) decidability. In other words, manageable neural cost provides anti-fragility (mindfulness) and suppressed neural cost (infantilization) increases fragility. The problem we face satisfaction of demand for predatory ( consumption, acquisition, opportunity, signals/status) vs prey ( consumption, insurance, certainty, not-sticking-out/equality). Markets (Economy) in everything: Unfortunately we have constructed a cognitive model of monopoly under both universalist abrahamic religion, justificationary philosophy, universal democracy, legislation (rather than tort law), and constructivist mathematics (and positivist logic). Despite the fact that the uniqueness of western civilization’s ‘salvation’ of mankind from superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, endemic violence, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature – was the product of anti-monopoly “Markets in All Walks of Life” under individual sovereignty, tort law of reciprocity, evidentiary (testifiable) truth regardless of cost to face, status, dominance, or competence hierarchy, duty of the commons regardless of station, decision jury, judge and rule of law, leaving the only remaining method of cooperation “as markets in all aspects of life” that resulted in our innovations of reason, empiricism, and science. Ergo, between religion, philosophy, (and that counter-empiricism we call the ‘enlightenment’ and it’s capture of power) democracy, followed by the revision of monopoly Abrahamic Monotheism( judaism, christianity, and islamism), that we call Marxism(Pseudoscience), Socialism(Monopoly Property), Postmodernism (monopoly sophism), and Feminism (monopoly female control vs compromise familial control) – we repeated the same process as the ancient era (resulting in the destruction of every civlization of the ancient world) and attempted in the current era to undermine (destroy) that social order that made our salvation from natural condition possible: non-monopoly markets of competition (calculation) using discovery by trial and error at the cost of soft eugenics (suppression of the reproduction of those who force burden by moral hazard onto others). The questions are one of knowledge and one of choice. Lacking knowledge one cannot make a choice. Possessing knowledge what choice does one (or all) make? The answer is divided between the predator and pack’s preservation, or the prey and herd’s submission. 😉 Maybe that will add to the discourse. 😉 -Cheers

  • WHY? VIA POSITIVA IDEAL, AND VIA NEGATIVA REAL —“Can’t think of a better defin

    WHY? VIA POSITIVA IDEAL, AND VIA NEGATIVA REAL

    —“Can’t think of a better definition: Virtue is limiting your behavior”—Micah Pezdirtz

    Via Negativa in Everything.
    It’s very hard to learn.
    Via Positiva Ideal, and Via Negativa Real.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-05 11:41:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059410325299179520

  • “Every virtue can be expressed as a limit.”—Luke Weinhagen

    —“Every virtue can be expressed as a limit.”—Luke Weinhagen

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-05 11:29:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059407447759249408

  • “Q: WHY DO OUR BRAINS CONSTRUCT TWO OPPOSING EXPLANATIONS?”— Question: “Why ha

    —“Q: WHY DO OUR BRAINS CONSTRUCT TWO OPPOSING EXPLANATIONS?”—

    Question: “Why have our marvelous brains formulated two diametrically opposite explanations?”

    Answer: Cognitive Division of Labor: Predator (action, dominance, science) — vs.– Prey (mindfulness, submission, religion).

    Problem: Demand for mindfulness increases with uncertainty. Post tribal life removes resource uncertainty at the cost of social uncertainty (female herd equality, male pack hierarchy). Scale increases uncertainty. Production cycles decrease availability of positive reinforcement (status signals, fitness signals). Consumerism buys signals, at cost of increase in isolation. Diversity (market polity) increases isolation.

    Choices:

    (a) Personal Rituals: Stoicism (Self Authoring) > Sophism (Philosophy) > Pseudoscience (“Church of TED, Marxist Economics”) > Religion (Old Age) > Magic (New Age) > Occult (literature – post-reason).

    (b) Social Rituals: Hunting > Sport > Commerce > Civic Groups and Clubs > Politics > Religion (academy, media, cult) > Fringe Movements (outcasts) > Occult (‘escapists’).

    What’s the Underlying Problem? Neural Economy. (Physical Economy(Stress), Emotional Economy (Stress), Neural Economy(stress)).

    Regularity provides certainty and decreased neural cost.

    Plenty provides personal decrease in neural cost but increase in cost of collective coherence, consistency, correspondence, and (frame) decidability.

    In other words, manageable neural cost provides anti-fragility (mindfulness) and suppressed neural cost (infantilization) increases fragility.

    The problem we face satisfaction of demand for predatory ( consumption, acquisition, opportunity, signals/status) vs prey ( consumption, insurance, certainty, not-sticking-out/equality).

    Markets (Economy) in everything: Unfortunately we have constructed a cognitive model of monopoly under both universalist abrahamic religion, justificationary philosophy, universal democracy, legislation (rather than tort law), and constructivist mathematics (and positivist logic).

    Despite the fact that the uniqueness of western civilization’s ‘salvation’ of mankind from superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, endemic violence, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of nature – was the product of anti-monopoly “Markets in All Walks of Life” under individual sovereignty, tort law of reciprocity, evidentiary (testifiable) truth regardless of cost to face, status, dominance, or competence hierarchy, duty of the commons regardless of station, decision jury, judge and rule of law, leaving the only remaining method of cooperation “as markets in all aspects of life” that resulted in our innovations of reason, empiricism, and science.

    Ergo, between religion, philosophy, (and that counter-empiricism we call the ‘enlightenment’ and it’s capture of power) democracy, followed by the revision of monopoly Abrahamic Monotheism( judaism, christianity, and islamism), that we call Marxism(Pseudoscience), Socialism(Monopoly Property), Postmodernism (monopoly sophism), and Feminism (monopoly female control vs compromise familial control) – we repeated the same process as the ancient era (resulting in the destruction of every civlization of the ancient world) and attempted in the current era to undermine (destroy) that social order that made our salvation from natural condition possible: non-monopoly markets of competition (calculation) using discovery by trial and error at the cost of soft eugenics (suppression of the reproduction of those who force burden by moral hazard onto others).

    The questions are one of knowledge and one of choice. Lacking knowledge one cannot make a choice. Possessing knowledge what choice does one (or all) make?

    The answer is divided between the predator and pack’s preservation, or the prey and herd’s submission. 😉

    Maybe that will add to the discourse. 😉

    -Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-05 10:25:00 UTC

  • BEING PART OF THE HERD: SOMETHING BIGGER THAN YOU —“When they say “I believe w

    BEING PART OF THE HERD: SOMETHING BIGGER THAN YOU

    —“When they say “I believe women”, it does not mean that they believe women’ statements like a scientific truths, but that they experience something between religious revelatory experience -and- sing-along with real Paul McCartney while participating in the “the kavavah show”; – as soon as you follow the tune (gospel), you feeling it is true and you are a part of something bigger and better than you.”—by Igor Rogov

    (There we go. Spot On. … )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-05 08:39:00 UTC

  • Thoughts…

      [W]e all use the tools available to us to attempt express our will to power (demand for agency). I have built a bunch of companies now, and am building a body of work. I’ve studied every field that I can study without getting my hands too dirty. I amuse myself teaching men of various agencies, as a way testing my work and improving my ability to communicate novel ideas. My ‘availability’ for ‘the students’ is simply necessary for my work (and somewhat entertaining since I have either been in a foreign country with limited circle, or here in the states with limited circle since I started working publicly) and my work relationships have always provided my social circle. I have had a thousand or more conversations with men and women from all walks of life who think using different words to change meaning is the same thing as acting to cause change in reality. And every individual does the same thing – try to make a story where the world fits his or her needs rather than adapting to the world such that one can seize the opportunity in it. So, we are not above a story we tell ourselves (yourselves) because selling a story is the only offering we have to attract attention with. If you have no capital, no organization, no income stream, no power relationships, are not politically engaged or engageable, not strong, athletic, or martial, then you have nothing to sell but stories. And if that is the case, then you probably are not willing or able to work hard enough to acquire any of the above. You can spend your prime years attempting to tell stories, and sell them. You do what you can with the rather good mind you (y’all) have. And with enough practice over six or ten years, you will either abandon it or find some use for it. But you could be working in craft, commerce, entertainment, education, or politics instead – and while you have probably lost seven to ten years of life to maleducation, you can spend another six to ten selling a story until your consequent failure is sufficient evidence for people your age to dismiss you. I’m a scientist, and those of you who sell stories, well, you need, want to be, and admire the priesthood- or rather the secular version of it – just as do all members of the academy. If you are on the libertarian or right end of the spectrum, you are just on the outside of the mainstream, and cannot employ it in the academy and are not knowledgeable enough yet to employ it in the media (might happen). . I understand this. But I have an approach to the problem of the present era, and that is to move the world forward, IN THE TERMS OF THOSE WHO HAVE AND MAINTAIN, POWER. Those people with whom I have understanding and experience. So, you know, if you want to tell yourself stories or create an english speaking version of the european new right, then I think you will need to work pretty hard at it. I will just move forward with ‘if it isn’t true, then how to I satisfy market demand truthfully’. And provide a solution that is in the material economic and kinship interests of enough of my people to cause them to demand that implementation by force. Cheers

  • Thoughts…

      [W]e all use the tools available to us to attempt express our will to power (demand for agency). I have built a bunch of companies now, and am building a body of work. I’ve studied every field that I can study without getting my hands too dirty. I amuse myself teaching men of various agencies, as a way testing my work and improving my ability to communicate novel ideas. My ‘availability’ for ‘the students’ is simply necessary for my work (and somewhat entertaining since I have either been in a foreign country with limited circle, or here in the states with limited circle since I started working publicly) and my work relationships have always provided my social circle. I have had a thousand or more conversations with men and women from all walks of life who think using different words to change meaning is the same thing as acting to cause change in reality. And every individual does the same thing – try to make a story where the world fits his or her needs rather than adapting to the world such that one can seize the opportunity in it. So, we are not above a story we tell ourselves (yourselves) because selling a story is the only offering we have to attract attention with. If you have no capital, no organization, no income stream, no power relationships, are not politically engaged or engageable, not strong, athletic, or martial, then you have nothing to sell but stories. And if that is the case, then you probably are not willing or able to work hard enough to acquire any of the above. You can spend your prime years attempting to tell stories, and sell them. You do what you can with the rather good mind you (y’all) have. And with enough practice over six or ten years, you will either abandon it or find some use for it. But you could be working in craft, commerce, entertainment, education, or politics instead – and while you have probably lost seven to ten years of life to maleducation, you can spend another six to ten selling a story until your consequent failure is sufficient evidence for people your age to dismiss you. I’m a scientist, and those of you who sell stories, well, you need, want to be, and admire the priesthood- or rather the secular version of it – just as do all members of the academy. If you are on the libertarian or right end of the spectrum, you are just on the outside of the mainstream, and cannot employ it in the academy and are not knowledgeable enough yet to employ it in the media (might happen). . I understand this. But I have an approach to the problem of the present era, and that is to move the world forward, IN THE TERMS OF THOSE WHO HAVE AND MAINTAIN, POWER. Those people with whom I have understanding and experience. So, you know, if you want to tell yourself stories or create an english speaking version of the european new right, then I think you will need to work pretty hard at it. I will just move forward with ‘if it isn’t true, then how to I satisfy market demand truthfully’. And provide a solution that is in the material economic and kinship interests of enough of my people to cause them to demand that implementation by force. Cheers

  • James on “honor (gloating) in Deceit”

    [R]egarding “honor-in-deceit”, let’s tease this out because it is beyond that. If you remember Japanese, say during WWII, only cowards surrender. I true warrior would rather die in battle or by suicide (not agreeing with that, just observing). So here we have not just “honor-in-deceit” but “mocking, and gloating”, so that if you TRUST and show HONOR and get cheated — you got punked like a farm animal and are shat upon. Then if you simply close the doors and say never again they come back, please please or you are racist! to let them in. Then you will get punked again and they laugh and mock you. Let’s Repeat That:

    —“It’s not just honor-in-deceit, but a mocking, and gloating, that if you TRUST and show HONOR and get cheated — you got punked like a farm animal and are shat upon.”—

    They POISON the MORAL WELL, and leave only the option for physical retaliation. Which is precisely what HONOR REQUIRES (duty, cost of maintaining the commons). If we argue and disagree we can separate. If we argue and insult we must punish. That is the only way to preserve the moral and informational commons.

  • James on “honor (gloating) in Deceit”

    [R]egarding “honor-in-deceit”, let’s tease this out because it is beyond that. If you remember Japanese, say during WWII, only cowards surrender. I true warrior would rather die in battle or by suicide (not agreeing with that, just observing). So here we have not just “honor-in-deceit” but “mocking, and gloating”, so that if you TRUST and show HONOR and get cheated — you got punked like a farm animal and are shat upon. Then if you simply close the doors and say never again they come back, please please or you are racist! to let them in. Then you will get punked again and they laugh and mock you. Let’s Repeat That:

    —“It’s not just honor-in-deceit, but a mocking, and gloating, that if you TRUST and show HONOR and get cheated — you got punked like a farm animal and are shat upon.”—

    They POISON the MORAL WELL, and leave only the option for physical retaliation. Which is precisely what HONOR REQUIRES (duty, cost of maintaining the commons). If we argue and disagree we can separate. If we argue and insult we must punish. That is the only way to preserve the moral and informational commons.