Curt Doolittle

Theme: Education

  • Joslin Hits It out Of the Park.

    by Bill Joslin (Just want to say that no one else has made it this far, and bill is rocking it.) 1 ———- PSYCHOLOGY Psychology – ostensive (experiential) argumentation to account for behavior. Incentive: seek a monopoly on perception via ostensive grammars Alternative: Aquisitionism where by human behaviour can be fully accounted via incentives. Outcome: a market for coherence via descriptive explanations of behaviour which can be tested with low or no context (declarative). 2 ———— POLITICAL *-OCRACY Any *-ocracy (democracy, oligarchy, Plutarchy, monarchy etc) are systemic moral justifications for control of nomocracy argued through imperatives. Incentive: to obtain a monopoly on the creation and execution of law – power over others argued via preferences for one “the good”. Alternative: propertarianism whereby all transactions must meet the criteria of perfect reciprocity. Outcome: disambiguous execution of law. A market for the creation of many “goods”. 3 ———- RELIGIOUS THEOLOGY Religio-philosophical are sets of arguments for prefered criteria of measuring truth. Incentive: obtain a monopoly on truth (justify god like proclamations about reality). Unwarranted declaration. Alternative: Testimonialism which uses all available criteria to demonstrate due diligence in eliminating error, bias, and deception Outcome: a market for coherence. 4 ——— MONOPOLY(DECEPTION) VS MARKET(TRUTH) In all cases above, the former uses ostensive or imperative grammars to obtain a monopoly. Each alternative “deframes” arguments, converting ostensive and imperative grammars into declarative statements. Why? Because only the declarative has the quality of being testable. This results in the destruction of monopolies over perception, law (violence) and truth allowing reality to dictate decisions and actions.

  • Joslin Hits It out Of the Park.

    by Bill Joslin (Just want to say that no one else has made it this far, and bill is rocking it.) 1 ———- PSYCHOLOGY Psychology – ostensive (experiential) argumentation to account for behavior. Incentive: seek a monopoly on perception via ostensive grammars Alternative: Aquisitionism where by human behaviour can be fully accounted via incentives. Outcome: a market for coherence via descriptive explanations of behaviour which can be tested with low or no context (declarative). 2 ———— POLITICAL *-OCRACY Any *-ocracy (democracy, oligarchy, Plutarchy, monarchy etc) are systemic moral justifications for control of nomocracy argued through imperatives. Incentive: to obtain a monopoly on the creation and execution of law – power over others argued via preferences for one “the good”. Alternative: propertarianism whereby all transactions must meet the criteria of perfect reciprocity. Outcome: disambiguous execution of law. A market for the creation of many “goods”. 3 ———- RELIGIOUS THEOLOGY Religio-philosophical are sets of arguments for prefered criteria of measuring truth. Incentive: obtain a monopoly on truth (justify god like proclamations about reality). Unwarranted declaration. Alternative: Testimonialism which uses all available criteria to demonstrate due diligence in eliminating error, bias, and deception Outcome: a market for coherence. 4 ——— MONOPOLY(DECEPTION) VS MARKET(TRUTH) In all cases above, the former uses ostensive or imperative grammars to obtain a monopoly. Each alternative “deframes” arguments, converting ostensive and imperative grammars into declarative statements. Why? Because only the declarative has the quality of being testable. This results in the destruction of monopolies over perception, law (violence) and truth allowing reality to dictate decisions and actions.

  • “Guilt Pangs of Autistics” Pangs from those many times throughout your life wher

    “Guilt Pangs of Autistics”

    Pangs from those many times throughout your life where you correct teachers and professors with autistic frustration over some error they’re making, and they they interpret it as emotional investment on your part, or offense, or criticism of them.

    No. Um. We just can’t stand mistakes. You’re just an object like a desk or a pet. It isn’t personal. We don’t have the concept of ‘personal’ until later in life. Really. And we’re horrified when you ‘take it personally’. You just convince us that the world is full of crazy people.

    Those of us who succeed, learn to role play by imitating others. And we obtain through discipline and study that which you obtained at birth. I still may not always be able to read your facial expressions but I can read your body language just fine. The reason being that your face is subtle but your body is not. It states your understanding of our relationship every second, the way your face states your feelings.

    I have a lot of guilt pangs over those episodes. Not the least of which is in the knowledge that I couldn’t control my impulse to ‘correct’ the teachers and professors. By the time I was in my early twenties I learned to just leave the room. “There is nothing to be learned here”.

    And into my thirties I did the same with meetings (really). “There is nothing smart going on here”. I learned to vote with my feet. This had the consequence of producing respect (and fear). When it was just an attempt to control my frustration at ignorance, error, and stupidity, and to devote my time to more important issues. Walking away from stupidity is the greatest negative reinforcement you can provide.

    Now, my understanding is that along the spectrum – before we develop unrecoverable damage, we largely have higher neural density, and it simply takes longer to program that neural density with intuition than it does with practicing (repetition).

    If that is the case then we are the next step in evolution, and that next step in evolution. Why? it will take us longer to mature a human through learning than it does an animal through instinct.

    And that is an interesting evolutionary risk. Since at some point if you are so dependent upon learning over intuition, then it is a weakness for a genome.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-04 09:27:00 UTC

  • Religion and Education Are the Same Thing.

    Let me help you. Religion and education are the same thing. I know. You wouldn’t think so. But that’s because you’re confusing cooperative technology (self and others) vs productive technology (things). Separation of church and state is logically impossible. It’s simply begging for a conflict of laws.

  • Religion and Education Are the Same Thing.

    Let me help you. Religion and education are the same thing. I know. You wouldn’t think so. But that’s because you’re confusing cooperative technology (self and others) vs productive technology (things). Separation of church and state is logically impossible. It’s simply begging for a conflict of laws.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. Let me help you. Religion and education are t

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    Let me help you. Religion and education are the same thing. I know. You wouldn’t think so. But that’s because you’re confusing cooperative technology (self and others) vs productive technology (things).

    Separation of church and state is logically impossible. It’s simply begging for a conflict of laws.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-03 16:42:08 UTC

  • Let me help you. Religion and education are the same thing. I know. You wouldn’t

    Let me help you. Religion and education are the same thing. I know. You wouldn’t think so. But that’s because you’re confusing cooperative technology (self and others) vs productive technology (things).

    Separation of church and state is logically impossible. It’s simply begging for a conflict of laws.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-03 12:42:00 UTC

  • I don’t think a lot of people will be able to wield the epistemology all that we

    I don’t think a lot of people will be able to wield the epistemology all that well – although I might be wrong. But the number of people who will make arguments, and make them better and more accessible than I do is large. I mean, I see this stuff showing up everywhere. The terms. The ideas. The arguments. And the people who have been around for years are better than I am at the inspirational.

  • I don’t think a lot of people will be able to wield the epistemology all that we

    I don’t think a lot of people will be able to wield the epistemology all that well – although I might be wrong. But the number of people who will make arguments, and make them better and more accessible than I do is large. I mean, I see this stuff showing up everywhere. The terms. The ideas. The arguments. And the people who have been around for years are better than I am at the inspirational.

  • Teach the way they can comprehend

    Some people need to be taught principles. Some people need to be taught rules. Some people need to be taught fear. Teach those who are worth teaching in the way they can comprehend. Its all a man can do. —Noah J Revoy