Curt Doolittle

Theme: Institution

  • World Religions and Their Consequences

    Apr 10, 2020, 12:09 PM

    —“Curt Doolittle: in comparison between Orthodoxy and evangelical Christianity in making states more or less better or first world or third world?”—Ibrahim Abd El Shihead

    Narrow Point: The fact that the orthodox church didn’t or couldn’t compete with the state on one hand, and didn’t try, as catholicism, to compete with science, reason, commerce, and law, (competition) and remained a specialist in family affairs (unity, community, love) is why it is still regarded as sacred to the people. This is why I don’t ever seem to have a problem with the orthodox community “church is for church, law is for disputes to be avoided at all costs, state is for state to protect us, and we all get along fine if we do our f-king jobs”. The problem i have with xianity is that western christians haven’t given up on fantasy of monopoly – theocratic rule, and can’t seem (like russians and traditional americans) to practice the natural trichotomy of state, law, and faith., Under the rather (insane) presumption that the church, having failed so drastically wouldn’t do so again. So to in this sense while evangelical christianity is closest to jesus’ teaching, the orthodox church is closest to the institutional church we need, and the catholic church and the protestant churches to that sought to limit the parasitism of the church, were failures. In other words, orthodoxy seems to have avoided both the catholic attempt to rule, the protestant attempt to undermine the church’s corruption, the necessity of catholic and protestant churches to attract members of the aristocracy as local administrators, and best preserved the role of the church in society. Another example of the value of intolerant monarchies. Broader Point: Aristotelianism seems to produce scientific and technical potential. Christianity seems to produce political and commercial potential but it wasn’t enough in russia probably because they missed the renaissance, reformation, and enlightenment. Islam seems to resist political, commercial and scientific potential, but produces underclass harmony. Judaism produces organized crime families that prey on the commons, which is extremely profitable for them at the cost of the host people. Judaism hasn’t been nearly as destructive as islam – but it’s certainly been bad for germany, russia, america, and now all of western europe. Hinduism is some kind of absolutely beautiful madness that I still struggle to get my arms around, but their problem seems to be demographic and without division into sub-states politically impossible to overcome. buddhism produces an equally kind harmony at the cost of stagnation. china is trivially easy to understand because they escaped religion. japan and korea easiest to understand. Without christianity (enforced) scandinavia, and without buddhism (enforced) japan/korea, would have come provided a pattern we needed. the optimum ‘religion’ was rule of law, militia, monarchy (imperialism), paganism (aristocracy), stoicism(middle) epicureanism (lower middle) heathenism (family), and a priesthood of any kind to take responsibility for the peasantry. This competition serves better than monopoly but it needs strong rule of law to prevent any usurping the rest. The problem is, markets are susceptible to intolerant monopolies and monotheism is intolerant and intolerance wins, so the only ‘total intolerance’ we need is defense of those markets.

  • World Religions and Their Consequences

    Apr 10, 2020, 12:09 PM

    —“Curt Doolittle: in comparison between Orthodoxy and evangelical Christianity in making states more or less better or first world or third world?”—Ibrahim Abd El Shihead

    Narrow Point: The fact that the orthodox church didn’t or couldn’t compete with the state on one hand, and didn’t try, as catholicism, to compete with science, reason, commerce, and law, (competition) and remained a specialist in family affairs (unity, community, love) is why it is still regarded as sacred to the people. This is why I don’t ever seem to have a problem with the orthodox community “church is for church, law is for disputes to be avoided at all costs, state is for state to protect us, and we all get along fine if we do our f-king jobs”. The problem i have with xianity is that western christians haven’t given up on fantasy of monopoly – theocratic rule, and can’t seem (like russians and traditional americans) to practice the natural trichotomy of state, law, and faith., Under the rather (insane) presumption that the church, having failed so drastically wouldn’t do so again. So to in this sense while evangelical christianity is closest to jesus’ teaching, the orthodox church is closest to the institutional church we need, and the catholic church and the protestant churches to that sought to limit the parasitism of the church, were failures. In other words, orthodoxy seems to have avoided both the catholic attempt to rule, the protestant attempt to undermine the church’s corruption, the necessity of catholic and protestant churches to attract members of the aristocracy as local administrators, and best preserved the role of the church in society. Another example of the value of intolerant monarchies. Broader Point: Aristotelianism seems to produce scientific and technical potential. Christianity seems to produce political and commercial potential but it wasn’t enough in russia probably because they missed the renaissance, reformation, and enlightenment. Islam seems to resist political, commercial and scientific potential, but produces underclass harmony. Judaism produces organized crime families that prey on the commons, which is extremely profitable for them at the cost of the host people. Judaism hasn’t been nearly as destructive as islam – but it’s certainly been bad for germany, russia, america, and now all of western europe. Hinduism is some kind of absolutely beautiful madness that I still struggle to get my arms around, but their problem seems to be demographic and without division into sub-states politically impossible to overcome. buddhism produces an equally kind harmony at the cost of stagnation. china is trivially easy to understand because they escaped religion. japan and korea easiest to understand. Without christianity (enforced) scandinavia, and without buddhism (enforced) japan/korea, would have come provided a pattern we needed. the optimum ‘religion’ was rule of law, militia, monarchy (imperialism), paganism (aristocracy), stoicism(middle) epicureanism (lower middle) heathenism (family), and a priesthood of any kind to take responsibility for the peasantry. This competition serves better than monopoly but it needs strong rule of law to prevent any usurping the rest. The problem is, markets are susceptible to intolerant monopolies and monotheism is intolerant and intolerance wins, so the only ‘total intolerance’ we need is defense of those markets.

  • The Undermining of The Masculine by Magical Thinking

    Apr 13, 2020, 9:11 AM (important summary) The military was shut out of politics. Then men’s organizations shut off and out of civil society. Then the family undermined to shut men out of the family. Then manliness shut out of education. Then men and manliness shut out of discourse. And only once that was accomplished could the enemy fully remove european sense making: realism, naturalism, operationalism and our heroism and duty, Excellence and Beauty, Truth and reciprocity, Law and Jury, and markets and eugenics – How, persistent, relentless undermining – the warfare strategy of the human female. It was all by design. The design to restore the pre-civilizational strategy of the female and the herd. A design driven by instinct not rason. However, there are no female civilizations for reason – they cannot survive. Yet they try over and over again to fail. Why? “Predisposition to magical thinking.” The predisposition to magical thinking is as relentless as the predisposition to undermine. Neither Eve nor Pandora received the punishment they deserved. … Until now.

  • The Undermining of The Masculine by Magical Thinking

    Apr 13, 2020, 9:11 AM (important summary) The military was shut out of politics. Then men’s organizations shut off and out of civil society. Then the family undermined to shut men out of the family. Then manliness shut out of education. Then men and manliness shut out of discourse. And only once that was accomplished could the enemy fully remove european sense making: realism, naturalism, operationalism and our heroism and duty, Excellence and Beauty, Truth and reciprocity, Law and Jury, and markets and eugenics – How, persistent, relentless undermining – the warfare strategy of the human female. It was all by design. The design to restore the pre-civilizational strategy of the female and the herd. A design driven by instinct not rason. However, there are no female civilizations for reason – they cannot survive. Yet they try over and over again to fail. Why? “Predisposition to magical thinking.” The predisposition to magical thinking is as relentless as the predisposition to undermine. Neither Eve nor Pandora received the punishment they deserved. … Until now.

  • Q: DEFINE POWER DISTANCE

    Apr 15, 2020, 4:24 PM Power distance – Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org (definitions)

    —“Would someone please robustly define power distance?”— Micky Callahan

    Power distance refers to the relationship between those in power and the subordinates in a society where lower ranking individuals depending on the high or low power distance culture react to that authority. Simple checklist (Doolittle): 1 – How many layers are between you and political decision makers. 2 – How many people are competing for their attention? 3 – How contradictory are the competitors demands to yours? 4 – How how likely are political decision makers to reflect anyone’s interest other than their own? Links via Paul Bard 1. Power Distance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance

    1. Power distance Index
      http://clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/power-distance-index

    2. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstede’s_cultural_dimensions_theory?

  • Q: DEFINE POWER DISTANCE

    Apr 15, 2020, 4:24 PM Power distance – Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org (definitions)

    —“Would someone please robustly define power distance?”— Micky Callahan

    Power distance refers to the relationship between those in power and the subordinates in a society where lower ranking individuals depending on the high or low power distance culture react to that authority. Simple checklist (Doolittle): 1 – How many layers are between you and political decision makers. 2 – How many people are competing for their attention? 3 – How contradictory are the competitors demands to yours? 4 – How how likely are political decision makers to reflect anyone’s interest other than their own? Links via Paul Bard 1. Power Distance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance

    1. Power distance Index
      http://clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/power-distance-index

    2. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstede’s_cultural_dimensions_theory?

  • Notes on Eric Weinstein interview:

    Apr 15, 2020, 7:05 PM 1) Continuing my criticism: You notice that Erice is GSRRM’ing all day long, but he’s not proposing an alternative model. Not how to create the research economy. Now how to reform the academy. He hasn’t provided enough a solution that’s strong enough to falsify the existing body of work. All he’s doing is GSRRM. And he pulls entertaining pseudo-intellectual analogy that makes a good story out of his hat rather than produce solutions open to criticism. 2) He goes after Lisi who took a different strategy and at least provided one output: candidates. I don’t see an output here. I see someone hinting at an avenue he wants other men to investigate? 3) Eric’s Attempt at description Two Models GR=General Relativity, . SM=Standard Model Four forces. One Gravitational, three not: 1) photons, 2) gluons and 3) intermediate vector Bosons. Then Matter. GR = Pride of place to gravity. SM = The other three of the four forces shine. photons, gluons and intermediate vector Bosons Take a manifold … (explains a manifold as a workspace in some geometry or other)… then goes off the rails again. Tired. Either you can construct an operational argument or you can’t. Mathematics is a trivial logic that because it is one dimensional (positional) is so simple that we can use it to describe any set of constant referents in constant relation independent of scale. All this childish digression into cartoons is self congratulatory nonsense. Either make the argument or don’t. And yes, it can be made in ordinary language because there is nothing that can be said in mathematics that cannot be said in ordinary, operational language, albeit with effort. 4) Well done on Gauge Theory: that is the best most accurate most parsimonious definition of gauge theory. To construct an operational argument, next describe Arithmetic > Accounting > Geometry > Calculus > Gauge Theory > Schrodinger > Weyl > Dirac > Yang-Mills-Maxwell > Lagrangian etc, using the same technique and it’s an obvious progression. I wish he’d do the same for symmetries and lie groups and explain why they’re important (evidence of equilibria). Correct on how the world hasn’t even caught up to the standard model, but then again, it’s not clear the community has either … because without it farther along, it’s still spoken in platonic language like a neo-mysticism just as dozen’s of great mathematicians warned. Regarding Dimensions: always confuses people when we confuse people with the four dimensional world and the forces (dimensions) that influence the points of reference (Positions) in that four dimensional space. As far as we know only three+one dimensions are required to describe a point in space time, but to to describe changes to it can require absurd numbers of dimensions. It’s one of those problems of the grammar of mathematical platonism. We describe space time with four dimensions, and we describe the forces on points in those four dimensions with additional dimensions when we say ‘it has’ vs ‘ we use’. Space and time do not have anything. We describe them with three plus one dimensions. No point that I know of requires more than three. This platonic (supernatural) vocabulary always loses the audience. 5) There is very little difference between strictly constructed law and the mathematics of euclidian geometry other than the far larger number of referents and operations in human behavior, and the far larger number of causal dimensions in mathematics that needn’t be described in human action.. If I can do it in my field Eric can do it in his. I had similar difficulty when I didn’t fully understand the problem. Once you fully understand the problem you should be able to reduce it to operational language (meaning scientific testimony). He doesn’t. He can’t. I have a lifetime of experience with people across the spectrum whether dyslexia or aspergers or anything in between. The fact that these people (myself included) identify patterns of promise does not mean that they are capable of doing anything about it. And so far the sour grapes thing, which I have also for the exact same reason, is.. well… not helping. Public therapy by verbal exegesis tiresome. Listening to his presentation of his theory, I understood his deduction. Until I understand his construction, assuming there is one, then I can’t tell if obsessions with critiques, virtue signaling, and trauma pandering combined with lack of ability to articulate solutions, is cover for lacking solutions. So, I understand administrative skepticism. Conversation ends.

  • Notes on Eric Weinstein interview:

    Apr 15, 2020, 7:05 PM 1) Continuing my criticism: You notice that Erice is GSRRM’ing all day long, but he’s not proposing an alternative model. Not how to create the research economy. Now how to reform the academy. He hasn’t provided enough a solution that’s strong enough to falsify the existing body of work. All he’s doing is GSRRM. And he pulls entertaining pseudo-intellectual analogy that makes a good story out of his hat rather than produce solutions open to criticism. 2) He goes after Lisi who took a different strategy and at least provided one output: candidates. I don’t see an output here. I see someone hinting at an avenue he wants other men to investigate? 3) Eric’s Attempt at description Two Models GR=General Relativity, . SM=Standard Model Four forces. One Gravitational, three not: 1) photons, 2) gluons and 3) intermediate vector Bosons. Then Matter. GR = Pride of place to gravity. SM = The other three of the four forces shine. photons, gluons and intermediate vector Bosons Take a manifold … (explains a manifold as a workspace in some geometry or other)… then goes off the rails again. Tired. Either you can construct an operational argument or you can’t. Mathematics is a trivial logic that because it is one dimensional (positional) is so simple that we can use it to describe any set of constant referents in constant relation independent of scale. All this childish digression into cartoons is self congratulatory nonsense. Either make the argument or don’t. And yes, it can be made in ordinary language because there is nothing that can be said in mathematics that cannot be said in ordinary, operational language, albeit with effort. 4) Well done on Gauge Theory: that is the best most accurate most parsimonious definition of gauge theory. To construct an operational argument, next describe Arithmetic > Accounting > Geometry > Calculus > Gauge Theory > Schrodinger > Weyl > Dirac > Yang-Mills-Maxwell > Lagrangian etc, using the same technique and it’s an obvious progression. I wish he’d do the same for symmetries and lie groups and explain why they’re important (evidence of equilibria). Correct on how the world hasn’t even caught up to the standard model, but then again, it’s not clear the community has either … because without it farther along, it’s still spoken in platonic language like a neo-mysticism just as dozen’s of great mathematicians warned. Regarding Dimensions: always confuses people when we confuse people with the four dimensional world and the forces (dimensions) that influence the points of reference (Positions) in that four dimensional space. As far as we know only three+one dimensions are required to describe a point in space time, but to to describe changes to it can require absurd numbers of dimensions. It’s one of those problems of the grammar of mathematical platonism. We describe space time with four dimensions, and we describe the forces on points in those four dimensions with additional dimensions when we say ‘it has’ vs ‘ we use’. Space and time do not have anything. We describe them with three plus one dimensions. No point that I know of requires more than three. This platonic (supernatural) vocabulary always loses the audience. 5) There is very little difference between strictly constructed law and the mathematics of euclidian geometry other than the far larger number of referents and operations in human behavior, and the far larger number of causal dimensions in mathematics that needn’t be described in human action.. If I can do it in my field Eric can do it in his. I had similar difficulty when I didn’t fully understand the problem. Once you fully understand the problem you should be able to reduce it to operational language (meaning scientific testimony). He doesn’t. He can’t. I have a lifetime of experience with people across the spectrum whether dyslexia or aspergers or anything in between. The fact that these people (myself included) identify patterns of promise does not mean that they are capable of doing anything about it. And so far the sour grapes thing, which I have also for the exact same reason, is.. well… not helping. Public therapy by verbal exegesis tiresome. Listening to his presentation of his theory, I understood his deduction. Until I understand his construction, assuming there is one, then I can’t tell if obsessions with critiques, virtue signaling, and trauma pandering combined with lack of ability to articulate solutions, is cover for lacking solutions. So, I understand administrative skepticism. Conversation ends.

  • I wonder why anyone in america gets married

    Apr 16, 2020, 7:14 PM ( When I listen to other couples talk I wonder why anyone in america gets married. What a bunch of ignorant, spoiled, self-indulgent, twits leading meaningless hamster-wheel lives, of obesity, virtue signaling, and social dysfunction from a failure to compete enough to learn to compromise. We don’t need man caves. We gotta build barracks for men so we can get away from the nests of harpies, and the harpies don’t have to deal with mansplaining they can’t understand anyway. It’s complete madness. I need to go back to eastern europe – western civ has gone mad. I can sit with a ukrainian woman in a cafe all day long with drinks and food, holding hands, chatting with friends, frittering time away on our phones, and sharing hugs and giggles and enjoying life like real human beings. America is full of addicts terrified of missing out on the next consumption signal, living in the world’s largest most elaborately decorated prison cells of their own making. These people are fking nuts. Really. )

  • LOYALTY

    Apr 16, 2020, 9:15 PM (from elsewhere) Very smart fellow and intellectually honest. Pleasure discussing this with you.

    —“When I brought up the religiosity of the US founders I was referring only to a very basic common principle: that morality, and its subgenre of political law, must be grounded in God by a logical necessity (hence the ‘God-given’ ‘inalienable rights’). This is a philosophical truth that Catholicism specifically built into European civ. and consequently handed down to our Protestant and Deist founders”–

    Well, it’s in our law which predates christianity by over two thousand years. Christian: God has given us his son jesus as his prophet, and first among his laws is to live in imitation of jesus and according to his teachings – teachings we call christian morality: to love thy neighbor as thyself, Deist: God has given us the evidence of his hand: the physical laws of nature(the physical sciences), the natural law of reciprocity (morality), the law of christian love (christianity), and the law of evolutionary necessity (transcendence). Scientist: Whether a god exists or not these are the laws evident in the universe: the physical laws of nature(the physical sciences), the natural law of reciprocity (morality), the law of seduction into reciprocity (christianity), and the law of evolutionary necessity (transcendence). The human brain evolved to distribute between feminine and empathic to raise children in small numbers and masculine and systematizing to govern polities in large numbers. Each of us regardless of sex, has a mix of feminine and masculine intuitions. For those of you with more feminine cognition, the empathic is necessary – you must feel the spirituality. For those of us who are in the middle – practical – we must only undrestand that the norm works and imitate it. For those of us who are entirely masculine, we feel nothing, find faith childish, find norms arbitrary, and seek the science in faith and norm – because we cannot feel, we cannot just imitate, we can only calculate. Throughout our history we have practiced Trifunctionalism: The martial aristocracy, the Religion of the Faithful, and the Judicial law to resolve our differences. We have always had three leadership groups: violence, law, and faith. Women and the faithful cannot think as men. Men and the empirical cannot think as women and the faithful. But by obeying the judicial law we can still cooperate despite our thinking. There is no place for truth in faith or it would not be faith. There is no place for faith in truth or it would not be truth. There is no place for violence in either. As such we are left with the law to judge our differences. Men and women can be loyal to one another. Men and women of feminine mind can marry. Men and women of practical mind can marry. Men and women of systematizing mind can marry. And under our law any combination in between – because loyalty is enough. Likewise the faithful, judicial, and martial can be loyal to one another. As we always have been. And both succeed. Or we cannot and both fail. And my name is Caesar so to speak. And my job is the law.