Curt Doolittle

Theme: Agency

  • A SHORT COURSE IN SOVEREIGNTY AND AGENCY DEFINITION: AGENCY (SIMPLE): LONGER: DE

    A SHORT COURSE IN SOVEREIGNTY AND AGENCY

    DEFINITION: AGENCY (SIMPLE): https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155063860317264

    LONGER: https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155029341322264

    DEFINITIONS: SOVEREIGNTY

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154992876797264

    NATURAL LAW, SOVEREIGNTY, AND THE RESTORATION

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155080414747264

    THE DISTILLATION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155077593257264

    THE DEFLATIONARY SPECIALIZATION OF WESTERN CIV.

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155055652697264

    NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGN MEN: DOMESTICATING ANIMAL MAN FOR PEERS AND PROFIT.

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154987815492264

    ARISTOCRACY: THE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION OF AGENCY

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155053521147264

    THE PROPERTARIAN TAKE ON WESTERN HISTORY

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155027904187264

    THE LANGUAGE OF SOVEREIGNTY

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155019942397264

    NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGN MEN: DOMESTICATING ANIMAL MAN FOR PEERS AND PROFIT.

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10154987815492264

    NATURAL LAW DOESN’T JUSTIFY ARISTOCRACY – IT JUSTIFIES MARKETS – IT IS JUST THAT NATURAL LAW IS ONLY POSSIBLE UNDER ARISTOCRACY

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155137947447264

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 18:17:00 UTC

  • Look: our ancestors organized the west to produce agency because agency is requi

    Look: our ancestors organized the west to produce agency because agency is required for fellow sovereigns. If you look at every other culture and civilization, what is it that those groups attempt to produce? Does islam teach agency? Does Confucianism? Does judaism? Does buddhism?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 13:46:00 UTC

  • Speaking in Operational Grammar is a Test of Agency

    SPEAKING IN OPERATIONAL GRAMMAR IS A TEST OF AGENCY It is very hard to migrate from thinking in terms of: 1 – meaning or experience to your self 2 – empathy for or meaning to others 3 – empathy with others intentions INTO 4 – nothing but objective statements of incentives, actors, actions, and consequences. NOTE: The degree with which you can do this kind of speech is a DIRECT MEASURE OF YOUR OWN AGENCY.

  • Speaking in Operational Grammar is a Test of Agency

    SPEAKING IN OPERATIONAL GRAMMAR IS A TEST OF AGENCY It is very hard to migrate from thinking in terms of: 1 – meaning or experience to your self 2 – empathy for or meaning to others 3 – empathy with others intentions INTO 4 – nothing but objective statements of incentives, actors, actions, and consequences. NOTE: The degree with which you can do this kind of speech is a DIRECT MEASURE OF YOUR OWN AGENCY.

  • Aristocracy: We Ask Cooperation of those with Agency, or its Promise

    We don’t ask cooperation of beasts We don’t ask cooperation of domesticated animals. We don’t ask cooperation of pets We don’t ask cooperation of children We don’t ask cooperation of the incapable We don’t ask cooperation of those without agency. We ask little cooperation of those who request subsidy. We ask more cooperation of those who request freedom. We ask even more cooperation from those who request liberty. We desire the full cooperation of those who possess agency. We require and cannot avoid the full cooperation of those who desire sovereignty. The few rule the many, to transcend mankind. We can rule and transcend, or be ruled and fail to. We can possess sovereignty in fact, or something less by permission. But to possess sovereignty requires we possess agency. And to possess agency we must possess the ability, the knowledge, the fitness and will… … the will to fight, kill, slaughter, and destroy. There is no transcendence, no sovereignty, no agency for the weak, the cowardly, the timid, or the dim. And no liberty, nor freedom, nor subsidy for others if we fail.

  • Aristocracy: We Ask Cooperation of those with Agency, or its Promise

    We don’t ask cooperation of beasts We don’t ask cooperation of domesticated animals. We don’t ask cooperation of pets We don’t ask cooperation of children We don’t ask cooperation of the incapable We don’t ask cooperation of those without agency. We ask little cooperation of those who request subsidy. We ask more cooperation of those who request freedom. We ask even more cooperation from those who request liberty. We desire the full cooperation of those who possess agency. We require and cannot avoid the full cooperation of those who desire sovereignty. The few rule the many, to transcend mankind. We can rule and transcend, or be ruled and fail to. We can possess sovereignty in fact, or something less by permission. But to possess sovereignty requires we possess agency. And to possess agency we must possess the ability, the knowledge, the fitness and will… … the will to fight, kill, slaughter, and destroy. There is no transcendence, no sovereignty, no agency for the weak, the cowardly, the timid, or the dim. And no liberty, nor freedom, nor subsidy for others if we fail.

  • Lying By Willful or Un-Willful Ignorance?

    LYING BY INTENT, OR LYING BY LACKING DISCIPLINE AND AGENCY? FYI: On “Lying” our position is that our genes drive our intuition, and our intuition biases our reason, such that we are constantly negotiating on behalf of our reproductive strategy and are entirely unconscious of it. Therefore we seek to produce ‘agency’ under which we are free of the genes, the intuition(elephant), and that our reason (Rider) is in control. (think of it as a very scientific take on stoicism. So in this sense it is quite easy for people who have not achieved agency (insulation from our genes and intuition) to lie by NOT working sufficiently to possess agency, and therefore remaining an attractor, and distributor of falsehoods (lies). And so just as you must carefully examine your senses to speak honestly, you must carefully develop the skill of truthfulness so that you do not attract and distribute lies and falsehoods. -cheers

  • Lying By Willful or Un-Willful Ignorance?

    LYING BY INTENT, OR LYING BY LACKING DISCIPLINE AND AGENCY? FYI: On “Lying” our position is that our genes drive our intuition, and our intuition biases our reason, such that we are constantly negotiating on behalf of our reproductive strategy and are entirely unconscious of it. Therefore we seek to produce ‘agency’ under which we are free of the genes, the intuition(elephant), and that our reason (Rider) is in control. (think of it as a very scientific take on stoicism. So in this sense it is quite easy for people who have not achieved agency (insulation from our genes and intuition) to lie by NOT working sufficiently to possess agency, and therefore remaining an attractor, and distributor of falsehoods (lies). And so just as you must carefully examine your senses to speak honestly, you must carefully develop the skill of truthfulness so that you do not attract and distribute lies and falsehoods. -cheers

  • The Lies We Seek To Tell: Evolutionary Biases.

    LIES WE SEEK TO TELL: THE BIASES BUILT UPON OUR ANCIENT ‘CIRCUITS’ by William Butchman “the lies they seek to tell” Human bias is interesting. We have evolved machinery in our brains, and we are processing novel situations with these ancient systems, processing things that they were never designed to process. We use these mental models which are simplistic, and when something happens in the universe which breaks our model (because we don’t account for it) we ‘startle’ and a circuit built for snakes is activated. (I don’t know if I have this exactly right, I’ve only heard it once) (From elsewhere:) Why we believe snakes are the most evil things: Dr. Peterson suggested that the reason why we have a particular antipathy towards snakes is because we’ve long been their prey (since our ancestors were tiny rodents). I believe our fear and terror and hatred of snakes might also be particularly strong because they continued to kill us long after we outgrew the other reptilian predators (once you’ve evolved to be monkey-sized, you can handle lizards because you’re big enough to fight them and you can see far enough around you to avoid them. But you can’t see so well around your feet or the topside of tall branches, aka where snakes lurk. The threats we fear most are the ones we can’t see, Snakes happen to fit into all the hard to see places. There’s also something particularly traumatizing about having one of your primate relatives eaten by a snake as opposed to any other predator. Their deaths are the most agonizing. Unlike one of those big cats with teeth evolved to puncture skulls or a wolf that goes for the jugular, snakes kill by poison or suffocation and they swallow prey whole. Oftentimes over the course of several hours. Prior to human inventiveness, I can’t imagine a more torturous and agonizing way to die. Snakes: these surprising dangers that lurk and jump out at us. We startle as we try to assess, an ancient circuit is activated. So, we have a bias to express the unknown, dangers, as snakes. At least this is the evolutionary theory of the prevalence of the mythology. So, I can see (if this is true) how our biases may be built on ancient circuits.

  • The Lies We Seek To Tell: Evolutionary Biases.

    LIES WE SEEK TO TELL: THE BIASES BUILT UPON OUR ANCIENT ‘CIRCUITS’ by William Butchman “the lies they seek to tell” Human bias is interesting. We have evolved machinery in our brains, and we are processing novel situations with these ancient systems, processing things that they were never designed to process. We use these mental models which are simplistic, and when something happens in the universe which breaks our model (because we don’t account for it) we ‘startle’ and a circuit built for snakes is activated. (I don’t know if I have this exactly right, I’ve only heard it once) (From elsewhere:) Why we believe snakes are the most evil things: Dr. Peterson suggested that the reason why we have a particular antipathy towards snakes is because we’ve long been their prey (since our ancestors were tiny rodents). I believe our fear and terror and hatred of snakes might also be particularly strong because they continued to kill us long after we outgrew the other reptilian predators (once you’ve evolved to be monkey-sized, you can handle lizards because you’re big enough to fight them and you can see far enough around you to avoid them. But you can’t see so well around your feet or the topside of tall branches, aka where snakes lurk. The threats we fear most are the ones we can’t see, Snakes happen to fit into all the hard to see places. There’s also something particularly traumatizing about having one of your primate relatives eaten by a snake as opposed to any other predator. Their deaths are the most agonizing. Unlike one of those big cats with teeth evolved to puncture skulls or a wolf that goes for the jugular, snakes kill by poison or suffocation and they swallow prey whole. Oftentimes over the course of several hours. Prior to human inventiveness, I can’t imagine a more torturous and agonizing way to die. Snakes: these surprising dangers that lurk and jump out at us. We startle as we try to assess, an ancient circuit is activated. So, we have a bias to express the unknown, dangers, as snakes. At least this is the evolutionary theory of the prevalence of the mythology. So, I can see (if this is true) how our biases may be built on ancient circuits.