Curt Doolittle

Theme: Education

  • (Only remember two instance of detention in high school. Neither I deserved. I d

    (Only remember two instance of detention in high school. Neither I deserved. I don’t remember the reason for the first other than it was false. The second was ridiculous. I wasn’t taking notes. But I never take notes. I never have had to. I remember everything. So I sat in the principal’s office and said that I would not show up for detention, and that he was welcome to take it up with my parents. I mean, if you knew my father, if I was wrong there would be hell to pay. But if I was right, you didn’t want him in your face. Not for even three seconds. He had your back in a fight. Especially against authority. One of the few good things I can say about him. So I only had one detention, in seventh grade, for insulting a teacher. And I deserved it. Not that he didn’t. But that it wasn’t my place to insult a teacher. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 15:29:00 UTC

  • Is that true? (a) increases in demonstrated intelligence appear to result almost

    Is that true? (a) increases in demonstrated intelligence appear to result almost entirely from the learning of general, universal rules. (b) The discipline of science exists almost entirely of methods of developing general rules of decidability independent of a diversity of ideas. (c) truth itself, differs from good, or preference in that it provides decidability regardless of preference or good. Is diversity of law a good thing? What about logic? What about criminality, ethics, morality, and evil? Teh only ‘diversity’ that I know of that is good is invention of that which is true, good, and preferable. Every other diversity, is almost always reducible to a means of conducting thefts under moral pretense.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 10:05:00 UTC

  • WHY IT’S NOT MY JOB TO MAKE IT SIMPLE FOR SIMPLE FOLK: THE DIVISION OF COGNITIVE

    WHY IT’S NOT MY JOB TO MAKE IT SIMPLE FOR SIMPLE FOLK: THE DIVISION OF COGNITIVE LABOR

    (a) Have you read bacon, Locke, smith, hume, darwin, spencer, hayek and nietzsche? What about Marx, Engels, Boaz, Freud, Adorno, Foucault, Derrida? What about Cantor Poincare Hilbert, and keynes? Of course not. You don’t read original material. You probably don’t even read the people who translate their ideas into common context in intellectual history. It’s possible you read simplifications written by those that simplify the work of the translators into intellectual history. Its most likely that you ‘hear’ the rules of thumb that interested or educated people have learned from the simplifiers.

    (b) Do you ask questions morally? Meaning do you ask how something CAN be true, or do you ask how you might err in how you think today? Especially given the evidence of what you know, have read, and have achieved in your life? No, you are another silly young male.

    (c) Just as there is an occupational hierarchy of politicians > financiers > entrepreneurs > executives > professionals > managers > craftsmen > laborers > underclass, there is an intellectual occupational hierarchy of inventors of ideas (140+) > communicators of ideas (130+) > adapters of ideas(120+) > users of adapted ideas(110+) > users of instructions provided by adopters of ideas (100+) > imitators of instructions provided by adapters of ideas (100-) > and below 100 we get into rumours, parables, and sayings rather than the ideas themselves.

    So ideas degrade with every generation downward. Common examples are that evolution is non-directional, other than the exploitation of niches, and the ludic fallacy that we can calculate probabilities of non-closed distributions.

    So you know, I don’t take criticisms from dimwits seriously and I’m unkind to dimwits because I’ve found that most dimwits are either not worth my time, or they are just young men who haven’t learned how to ask questions using good manners. The way I test young men, is by shaming them. And that separates the moral young men, from the dimwits.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-24 08:39:00 UTC

  • “Curt, You should talk to X!!!”— Anon Translated: Curt, I have this frame of r

    —“Curt, You should talk to X!!!”— Anon

    Translated: Curt, I have this frame of reference. Can you talk in my frame of reference?

    I get this all the time because some writer somewhere said something that made sense to somebody.

    In other words, “Can you do the work for me?”. So instead, say “so and so says this, and I felt this, can you tell me what you think about it?”

    Well you know I provided a universal frame of reference right? That’s what acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism do right?

    Why is it that I should talk to people who do NOT talk in a universal frame of reference?

    I don’t need to find a way to make excuses or lie in some other frame of reference in order to justify my objectives.

    It’s up to others to justify their frames of reference and objectives if they violate acquisitionism, propertarianism, testimonialism: the natural law of reciprocity.

    Ya see? Its like asking a mathematician using measurements to talk in nonsense like ‘Oh, it’s about a country mile as the crow flies…”

    (Excuse my frustration.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 09:58:00 UTC

  • NOTE FOR NEWBS: I’m glad you’re here to participate. I love it if you correct me

    NOTE FOR NEWBS:

    I’m glad you’re here to participate.

    I love it if you correct me.

    I love it if you educate me.

    I love it if you tease me when it’s good natured.

    I love it when you ask serious questions.

    I love it when you contribute meaningfully to the discourse.

    I find criticisms of other peoples tiresome – Instead, what will you do to fix our people’s weakness not chastise others strengths?

    I don’t generally ‘get’ humor – don’t bother.

    I am very jealous of my time – don’t waste it.

    I have a very low tolerance for justificationary stupidness.

    if you don’t understand justificationary stupidness, that’ means whenever you think you’re being smart and cunning with a turn of phrase. Um… cause you’re neither.

    We Are Men.

    Act like it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 10:51:00 UTC

  • Yes, I read a lot faster than most people do – but it’s primarily because at thi

    Yes, I read a lot faster than most people do – but it’s primarily because at this point, anything novel someone says leaps out, anything intelligent someone says is predictable, and anything unintelligent someone says is readily identifiable and discountable. So, there isn’t a lot to ‘read’ in the sense of ‘understand’. It’s more a function of quickly identifying the obvious and the stupid. The only thing that’s valuable is something I don’t know, and creative framing that assists easier communication. is that fucking arrogant? Maybe. It’s just freaking true. And its a benefit of propertarianism and testimonialism. Everything in the human experience just sort of ‘makes sense’ once you get it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 09:44:00 UTC

  • ( Thanks for tolerating the hyper-posting lately. I’m working on the ‘Constituti

    ( Thanks for tolerating the hyper-posting lately. I’m working on the ‘Constitution’ and solving Religion allowed me to finish with Education. So thanks for letting me work through the issue. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-18 12:37:00 UTC

  • Why do I want to combine church, school, and academy? Because the era where educ

    Why do I want to combine church, school, and academy? Because the era where education ends is over. Education will be continuous. Not a single large investment followed by debt, but a continuous part time investment from birth until death. Not classes organized by age, but by ability and interest. And there is no need for a church of lies. We will not need a church of continuous therapy for our failure to produce mindfulness. Only the teaching of the disciplines by which we produce in a division of labor, that security which we evolved in the tribe.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 14:21:00 UTC

  • Teaching reading and mathematics is hard. Teaching stoicism is no harder. And of

    Teaching reading and mathematics is hard. Teaching stoicism is no harder. And of the three of them I”m pretty sure it’s the most important. Otherwise ‘continous therapy’ of religion is necessary

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 10:47:00 UTC

  • THE STRUCTURE OF ‘GOOD’ and ‘TRUE’ RELIGION. As far as I know, the optimum relig

    THE STRUCTURE OF ‘GOOD’ and ‘TRUE’ RELIGION.

    As far as I know, the optimum religion (teaching) we currently can know of consists of:

    1) Myths-Fables-Fairy Tales, Biographies, History.

    2) Literary Analysis: Transcendence, thru Virtues

    3) Disciplines that teach the virtues (and provide comforts)

    4) Reward for learning with the joy of submission to the pack (safety)

    5) Rewarding submission to the pack with Holidays and Festivals.

    (The problem is falsifying consumer-status and virtue signaling which is terribly addictive and makes us crazy.)

    This treatment allows the use of and analysis of all of our vast literature across the “Matters Of” Greece, Rome, Germania, Scandinavia, the Isles, and The Slavic Lands. And to rely on muth, biography and history for lessons.

    And to discourse on the virtues. Since man is constant and his struggles identical in each era, this provides an enormous set of choices for us.

    The difference is, (a) love one another, (b) love your people, (c) work as a community, (d) accept reality as inescapable and (e) adapt yourself to succeed in reality.

    What dogmas (favored messages, favored teachings) will emerge from such an order? I have no idea. The market will solve that problem. But as long as they are not false. As long as they are True, Good, And Desirable, then they are in fact ‘good’.

    HIERARCHY OF INSTITUTIONS

    3) Roman Paganism (archetypes) (categories and measures)

    2) Roman Stoicism (virtues) (via positiva) (subcategories and measures)

    1) Roman Law (limits) (via negativa) (further subcategories and measures)

    0) The Laws of Nature (science) further subcategories and measures)

    THE SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE AND TRUTH

    (read it and weep) (stoicism) (truthful literature)

    1) THE MONOMYTH – Transcendence (Transformation)

    2) THE ARCHETYPES – Characters (Categories)

    3) THE VIRTUES – Comparison Operators (Values)

    4) THE ORDERS – Axioms (Relations: sets of conditions)

    5) THE NARRATIVES – Operations (Methods of change in state)

    6) THE DISCIPLINES – Mindfulness/Stoicism ( Noise Reduction)

    7) THE SCIENCES – Measurement (reduction of ignorance, error, bias, deception reduction)

    8) THE TRUTH – Parsimony (Most Parsimonious Operational Name of a Recipe of Transformation.)

    THE LIMITS

    There exists only one objective – transcendence.

    There exists only one narrative – transcendence

    There exist only a few sub-narratives – methods of transcendence

    There exist only so many non-false virtues – variables of transcendence

    There exist only so many portfolios of virtues – transcendent characters.

    There exist only so many methods of non-false noise reduction – transcendent mind.

    There exist only so many methods of non-false elimination of falsehoods – transcendent reason.

    There exists only so many sets of primary operations – transcendent truths.

    Via-Positiva:

    A myth can employ anthropomorphism in an act of transcendence.

    A myth can employ hyperbole (super-normalism) in an act of transcendence.

    A myth can employ any technique to create an immoral condition against which one employs virtues to transcend.

    A myth can employ virtues in an act of transcendence.

    Via Negativa:

    A myth cannot contradict the virtue of transcendence.

    A myth cannot contradict of a virtue of transcendence in an act of transcendence.

    A myth cannot employ a falsehood in an act of transcendence

    A myth cannot employ luck or miracles in an act of transcendence.

    A myth cannot employ fictionalism (idealism, supernaturalism, pseudoscience/pseudo-rationalism) in an act of transcendence.

    CONCLUSION

    If a myth can survive these tests then it is true, and good.

    If a myth cannot survives these tests then it is false, and evil.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-15 09:02:00 UTC