Curt Doolittle

Theme: Decidability

  • Abrahamism = authoritarianism (submission) + Pilpul + fictionalism. It is a crit

    Abrahamism = authoritarianism (submission) + Pilpul + fictionalism. It is a criticism of technique, not content. Gods serve as a system of calculation (decidability) by most primitive means (anthropic comparison). Monopoly, authority, justificationism(lying), polymoralism, and fictionalism are very different from markets, reciprocity, truth, and law.

    Abrahamism is hostile to civilization. Which is why jews cannot produce trust, capital, and hold territory and have been repeatedly pushed to near extermination, muslims could use surplus population to conquer, destroy, and rule, but immediately declined into mysticism, dysgenia, tribalism, and poverty, and christianity drove the west into ignorance and poverty from which they only escaped by the reintroduction of scandinavian pagans, germanic law, and greek thought.

    The lessons of the Syrians (Byzantines) that were used to canonize christianity are very simple:

    1 – Extirpate hatred from the human heart.

    2 – Extend kinship love to non kin (Exhaust interpersonal Forgiveness)

    3 – Devote time effort and wealth to interpersonal charity.

    4 – Use political intolerance for those who do otherwise. Personal tolerance political intolerance.

    And by the science we know that this produces maximum possibility for integration and cooperation.

    There is nothing else to be learned. Nothing. ZERO.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-22 09:56:00 UTC

  • Decidability Program in Basic 😉

    DECIDABILITY 10 Law, 20 History 30 Science 40 Philosophy 50 Mythology (Literature) 60 Religion 70 GOTO: 10

  • Decidability Program in Basic 😉

    DECIDABILITY 10 Law, 20 History 30 Science 40 Philosophy 50 Mythology (Literature) 60 Religion 70 GOTO: 10

  • —“Curt: Whats the most inspiring philosophical text you’ve read?”—

    (a) Inspiration is something I don’t really need, which is why I don’t see philosophy as self-help but decidability. (c) I don’t read philosophy except to understand how previous generations of thinkers have failed. (really). Instead, I read science and art history, both of which are *demonstrated*, not fantasized (as is philosophy). In fact, I still read philosophers and generally thing “OMG this is sh-t”. (b) The only books I can recall inspiring me were those of history, particularly military history, and within that group ‘Strategy” by Liddel-Hart, and the history of the Mongols. I consider my study of the mongols my first really independent research program outside of arts and sciences. (e) And whether you consider Sun Tsu, Alexander, Caesar, Machiavelli, Napoleon, Clausewitz, and Keegan philosophy or military strategy and history is a question of bias in categorization. (d) I can only remember being affected heavily by Hayek’s two papers on knowledge, less so his work on law, and more so Popper and Kuhn’s work on scientific epistemology. In my understanding of history I have combined nietzsche’s aryanism, hayek’s knowledge and law, weber/mises/simmel’s calculation problem, completed popper’s epistemology, and Hoppe’s reduction of all social science to statements of property (tort). (e) In aesthetics I was affected by rand’s romantic manifesto in no small part because my university’s art college was based upon it – and it stuck with me HARD. (f) You might call Simmel’s “The Philosophy of Money” a book on philosophy or work of social science. I deem it the latter. And I read Weber, Durkhiem, and Pareto to understand economics for the same reason. (g) You might call Nietzche’s Birth of Tragedy philosophy but I consider it social science. I respect nietzsche but I don’t read him for philosophy or inspiration (I find german literature ridiculous), but I did try to understand how he failed to produce a more scientific program for his insight into heroic ethics. SO WHAT I HEAR FROM PEOPLE WHEN THEY ASK ME ABOUT PHILOSOPHY: is there a literature in ordinary language that I can read as a shortcut to understanding? And the answer is I don’t think so. And I am pretty sure you will learn more from following me for two years than you will learn from any study of philosophy. Not because I”m particularly good, but because I’m actually a scientist, and most philosophers have been tragic. I started with history, then science, then artificial intelligence, and then economics. And so my ‘route’ to wisdom was scientific not literary. cheers Apr 20, 2018 11:40am

  • —“Curt: Whats the most inspiring philosophical text you’ve read?”—

    (a) Inspiration is something I don’t really need, which is why I don’t see philosophy as self-help but decidability. (c) I don’t read philosophy except to understand how previous generations of thinkers have failed. (really). Instead, I read science and art history, both of which are *demonstrated*, not fantasized (as is philosophy). In fact, I still read philosophers and generally thing “OMG this is sh-t”. (b) The only books I can recall inspiring me were those of history, particularly military history, and within that group ‘Strategy” by Liddel-Hart, and the history of the Mongols. I consider my study of the mongols my first really independent research program outside of arts and sciences. (e) And whether you consider Sun Tsu, Alexander, Caesar, Machiavelli, Napoleon, Clausewitz, and Keegan philosophy or military strategy and history is a question of bias in categorization. (d) I can only remember being affected heavily by Hayek’s two papers on knowledge, less so his work on law, and more so Popper and Kuhn’s work on scientific epistemology. In my understanding of history I have combined nietzsche’s aryanism, hayek’s knowledge and law, weber/mises/simmel’s calculation problem, completed popper’s epistemology, and Hoppe’s reduction of all social science to statements of property (tort). (e) In aesthetics I was affected by rand’s romantic manifesto in no small part because my university’s art college was based upon it – and it stuck with me HARD. (f) You might call Simmel’s “The Philosophy of Money” a book on philosophy or work of social science. I deem it the latter. And I read Weber, Durkhiem, and Pareto to understand economics for the same reason. (g) You might call Nietzche’s Birth of Tragedy philosophy but I consider it social science. I respect nietzsche but I don’t read him for philosophy or inspiration (I find german literature ridiculous), but I did try to understand how he failed to produce a more scientific program for his insight into heroic ethics. SO WHAT I HEAR FROM PEOPLE WHEN THEY ASK ME ABOUT PHILOSOPHY: is there a literature in ordinary language that I can read as a shortcut to understanding? And the answer is I don’t think so. And I am pretty sure you will learn more from following me for two years than you will learn from any study of philosophy. Not because I”m particularly good, but because I’m actually a scientist, and most philosophers have been tragic. I started with history, then science, then artificial intelligence, and then economics. And so my ‘route’ to wisdom was scientific not literary. cheers Apr 20, 2018 11:40am

  • “Curt: Whats the most inspiring philosophical text you’ve read?”— (a) Inspirat

    —“Curt: Whats the most inspiring philosophical text you’ve read?”—

    (a) Inspiration is something I don’t really need, which is why I don’t see philosophy as self-help but decidability.

    (c) I don’t read philosophy except to understand how previous generations of thinkers have failed. (really). Instead, I read science and art history, both of which are *demonstrated*, not fantasized (as is philosophy). In fact, I still read philosophers and generally thing “OMG this is sh-t”.

    (b) The only books I can recall inspiring me were those of history, particularly military history, and within that group ‘Strategy” by Liddel-Hart, and the history of the Mongols. I consider my study of the mongols my first really independent research program outside of arts and sciences.

    (e) And whether you consider Sun Tsu, Alexander, Caesar, Machiavelli, Napoleon, Clausewitz, and Keegan philosophy or military strategy and history is a question of bias in categorization.

    (d) I can only remember being affected heavily by Hayek’s two papers on knowledge, less so his work on law, and more so Popper and Kuhn’s work on scientific epistemology. In my understanding of history I have combined nietzsche’s aryanism, hayek’s knowledge and law, weber/mises/simmel’s calculation problem, completed popper’s epistemology, and Hoppe’s reduction of all social science to statements of property (tort).

    (e) In aesthetics I was affected by rand’s romantic manifesto in no small part because my university’s art college was based upon it – and it stuck with me HARD.

    (f) You might call Simmel’s “The Philosophy of Money” a book on philosophy or work of social science. I deem it the latter. And I read Weber, Durkhiem, and Pareto to understand economics for the same reason.

    (g) You might call Nietzche’s Birth of Tragedy philosophy but I consider it social science. I respect nietzsche but I don’t read him for philosophy or inspiration (I find german literature ridiculous), but I did try to understand how he failed to produce a more scientific program for his insight into heroic ethics.

    SO WHAT I HEAR FROM PEOPLE WHEN THEY ASK ME ABOUT PHILOSOPHY:

    is there a literature in ordinary language that I can read as a shortcut to understanding? And the answer is I don’t think so. And I am pretty sure you will learn more from following me for two years than you will learn from any study of philosophy. Not because I”m particularly good, but because I’m actually a scientist, and most philosophers have been tragic.

    I started with history, then science, then artificial intelligence, and then economics. And so my ‘route’ to wisdom was scientific not literary.

    cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-20 11:40:00 UTC

  • DECIDABILITY 10 Law, 20 History 30 Science 40 Philosophy 50 Mythology (Literatur

    DECIDABILITY

    10 Law,

    20 History

    30 Science

    40 Philosophy

    50 Mythology (Literature)

    60 Religion

    70 GOTO: 10

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-20 10:18:00 UTC

  • Forms of Decidability (government) at Different Scales

    Capitalism should be applied to strangers on a macro scale. (Market Relations) Socialism should be applied on normative organizational scale. (Normative Relations) Communalism should be applied with “family” on a micro scale. (Kin Relations) And Fascism should be applied to all in times of war. (Because only those methods of decision are available at each scale.) Pure capitalists get it wrong because they betray their immediate in-groups. Pure communists get it wrong because one in-group is impossible, and force others to betray in-groups. (original version by Justin Odiogn) Apr 19, 2018 8:49am

  • Forms of Decidability (government) at Different Scales

    Capitalism should be applied to strangers on a macro scale. (Market Relations) Socialism should be applied on normative organizational scale. (Normative Relations) Communalism should be applied with “family” on a micro scale. (Kin Relations) And Fascism should be applied to all in times of war. (Because only those methods of decision are available at each scale.) Pure capitalists get it wrong because they betray their immediate in-groups. Pure communists get it wrong because one in-group is impossible, and force others to betray in-groups. (original version by Justin Odiogn) Apr 19, 2018 8:49am

  • FORMS OF DECIDABILITY (GOVERNMENT) AT DIFFERENT SCALES Capitalism should be appl

    FORMS OF DECIDABILITY (GOVERNMENT) AT DIFFERENT SCALES

    Capitalism should be applied to strangers on a macro scale. (Market Relations)

    Socialism should be applied on normative organizational scale. (Normative Relations)

    Communalism should be applied with “family” on a micro scale. (Kin Relations)

    And Fascism should be applied to all in times of war.

    (Because only those methods of decision are available at each scale.)

    Pure capitalists get it wrong because they betray their immediate in-groups.

    Pure communists get it wrong because one in-group is impossible, and force others to betray in-groups.

    (original version by Justin Odiogn)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 08:49:00 UTC