Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. MORALITY IS AN EXCLUSIVELY PRESENT QUESTION t

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    MORALITY IS AN EXCLUSIVELY PRESENT QUESTION

    there need be no justification for war, conquest, colonization, exploitation, decimation and genocide since moral questions are only relevant between cooperators. The past happened and we cannot alter history, only cooperate in the present or war in the present. i have no debt to the past. you have no credit from it. build a civil society today or admit you cant and need to be ruled. there are plenty of peoples more advanced that can rule if you cant. time moves. the weak are conquered. evolution continues. excuses are meaningless because the universe is deaf. the past is irrelevant. cooperate, conquer or be conquered. morality is an exclusively present question.

    — edit —

    This post is in response to intertemporal claims of debts between peoples who have been in conflict and particularly asymmetrical conflict. In the west, we do not regularly tell the Turks that they are occupying white lands. Yet we tell the arabs they are occupying jewish lands. We tell the Boers that they are occupying African lands. And texans they are occupying mexican (Amerindian) lands. And the russians are occupying Siberian and caucasian lands. And the north and south Americans occupying amerindian lands. And the amerindians occupying the previous generations of Siberians who discovered and hunted the americas first.

    I’ve answered this question before, but in my understanding, you establish ownership of territory by infrastructure and monuments (contribution) not use (extraction).

    otherwise you are making poor use of territory at others’ expense, and therefore harm by your very existence. Just as if you cannot rule without imposing costs upon your neighbors, that you are making poor use of territory at other’s expense.

    So if you cannot produce capital (physical, and institutional) then the market for territories demonstrates your unfitness to hold it. Not by arbitrary reasons but by EVOLUTIONARY means.

    Debts end when restitution is no longer possible between creditor and debtor. And when no insurer exists to enforce them. That’s just a statement of possibility. All else is just means, motive, and opportunity.

    Given: Criminal(for physical gains) > ethical (for interpersonal gains) > moral (for extrapersonal gains) > evil ( for psychic reward from interpersonal and interpersonal losses)

    Moral questions are those where our actions are unobservable and not directly calculable – say, when you bear a child you cannot afford and impose the cost of its upkeep on the community through the creation of moral hazard.

    It seems most people who are commenting confuse the practical and calculable with the moral (invisible and incalculable).

    You might say that it’s practical to avoid offending competing groups. And that the reason for practicality is incentive for retaliation against the imposition of costs upon others. And in that sense the practical and the moral are both questions imposition, but they are not equal questions of cooperation.

    Whether you are immature (stupid) enough to allow your training in jewish, christian, muslim universalism and superstition, and conflate the criminal, ethical, moral, and practical, you’re doing the same things as women do by expanding the communalism of family to the market that is the polity, by extending the market of the polity, to that of the international market of competitors.

    Conquest, Decimation, Genocide, are extremely effective. And the products of our arts and sciences are the products of groups that expand, conquer, and put territories and resources to superior use in the production of temporal and intertemporal capital.

    Always expand. Always Create. Always Innovate. Always Conquer and put to better use – assuming you can put to better use in ten accumulation of genetic, cultural, knowledge, and institutional capital.

    Evolution is the end point decision of all conflicts. Experience is only useful in getting there.
    Evolve or die.
    Eat the Weak.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 02:11:37 UTC

  • MORALITY IS AN EXCLUSIVELY PRESENT QUESTION there need be no justification for w

    MORALITY IS AN EXCLUSIVELY PRESENT QUESTION

    there need be no justification for war, conquest, colonization, exploitation, decimation and genocide since moral questions are only relevant between cooperators. The past happened and we cannot alter history, only cooperate in the present or war in the present. i have no debt to the past. you have no credit from it. build a civil society today or admit you cant and need to be ruled. there are plenty of peoples more advanced that can rule if you cant. time moves. the weak are conquered. evolution continues. excuses are meaningless because the universe is deaf. the past is irrelevant. cooperate, conquer or be conquered. morality is an exclusively present question.

    — edit —

    This post is in response to intertemporal claims of debts between peoples who have been in conflict and particularly asymmetrical conflict. In the west, we do not regularly tell the Turks that they are occupying white lands. Yet we tell the arabs they are occupying jewish lands. We tell the Boers that they are occupying African lands. And texans they are occupying mexican (Amerindian) lands. And the russians are occupying Siberian and caucasian lands. And the north and south Americans occupying amerindian lands. And the amerindians occupying the previous generations of Siberians who discovered and hunted the americas first.

    I’ve answered this question before, but in my understanding, you establish ownership of territory by infrastructure and monuments (contribution) not use (extraction).

    otherwise you are making poor use of territory at others’ expense, and therefore harm by your very existence. Just as if you cannot rule without imposing costs upon your neighbors, that you are making poor use of territory at other’s expense.

    So if you cannot produce capital (physical, and institutional) then the market for territories demonstrates your unfitness to hold it. Not by arbitrary reasons but by EVOLUTIONARY means.

    Debts end when restitution is no longer possible between creditor and debtor. And when no insurer exists to enforce them. That’s just a statement of possibility. All else is just means, motive, and opportunity.

    Given: Criminal(for physical gains) > ethical (for interpersonal gains) > moral (for extrapersonal gains) > evil ( for psychic reward from interpersonal and interpersonal losses)

    Moral questions are those where our actions are unobservable and not directly calculable – say, when you bear a child you cannot afford and impose the cost of its upkeep on the community through the creation of moral hazard.

    It seems most people who are commenting confuse the practical and calculable with the moral (invisible and incalculable).

    You might say that it’s practical to avoid offending competing groups. And that the reason for practicality is incentive for retaliation against the imposition of costs upon others. And in that sense the practical and the moral are both questions imposition, but they are not equal questions of cooperation.

    Whether you are immature (stupid) enough to allow your training in jewish, christian, muslim universalism and superstition, and conflate the criminal, ethical, moral, and practical, you’re doing the same things as women do by expanding the communalism of family to the market that is the polity, by extending the market of the polity, to that of the international market of competitors.

    Conquest, Decimation, Genocide, are extremely effective. And the products of our arts and sciences are the products of groups that expand, conquer, and put territories and resources to superior use in the production of temporal and intertemporal capital.

    Always expand. Always Create. Always Innovate. Always Conquer and put to better use – assuming you can put to better use in ten accumulation of genetic, cultural, knowledge, and institutional capital.

    Evolution is the end point decision of all conflicts. Experience is only useful in getting there.

    Evolve or die.

    Eat the Weak.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 22:11:00 UTC

  • “I’m up for via-negativa law, via-positiva fiction, and via-reciprocity trade.”-

    —“I’m up for via-negativa law, via-positiva fiction, and via-reciprocity trade.”— Bryan Nova Brey

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 21:34:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016072939878404096

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. —“I’m up for via-negativa law, via-positi

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    —“I’m up for via-negativa law, via-positiva fiction, and via-reciprocity trade.”— Bryan Nova Brey

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 21:33:49 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. REBUTTALS OF A THEIST 1) Law, particularly we

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    REBUTTALS OF A THEIST

    1) Law, particularly western empirical law of tort, under presumption of sovereignty and therefore demand for reciprocity existed before idealism (mathematics), criticism (socrates), justification (plato), and empiricism (Aristotle), and their concluding movement (Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Roman Law). (Despite Augustine’s attempt to combine jewish law’s justificationism using pilpul and critique, with the greek thinkers use of idealism, and abandoning the result of the greek experiment: roman law, empiricism, stoicism, epicureanism, and tolerance for local cult and custom. )

    1) —“Rebutting the claims of an existing creator?”—
    Means, motive, opportunity, evidence, method of argument.
    The motive is to create a lie using false threats and promises to provide the individual with immunity from the labor of reason, accept his position in life, and act obediently to priests, in exchange for monies (and in europe, lands). While at the same time ending the practice of literacy and preserving literacy only within the authoritarian system of deceits.

    2) —“Or refuting the resurrection theory?”—
    Means, motive, opportunity, evidence, method of argument.
    Evidence is that this was all compiled from preexisting myths, and other than some otherwise indiscriminate fellow being crucified for agitating against the profiteering by jewish priests, the rest of the story is a fabrication, not the least of which was initiated by Saul of Tarsus.

    People love to buy drugs.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 18:53:25 UTC

  • When You Criticize Propertarianism You”re Almost Certainly Wrong

    (REALLY) Any criticism of Propertarianism (Natural Law consisting of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism) will require fictions, deceptions, and frauds – which I acknowledge are successful means of persuading humans ‘cheaply’. And every criticism I have heard, appears Postmodern (Truth is coherence within the socially constructed frame(paradigm) rather than decidable independent of frames (paradigms)). And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness. And that the aristocracy used this invention to profit from the continuous domestication of pre-human animals (men) such that the society produced agency and therefore made the aristocracy capable of increasing their numbers, such that they could continue to fight with their successful military strategy (combining technology, maneuver, and independent creative tactics. IT’S NOT COMPLICATED Look, it’s not complicated. Mathematics is a deflationary (limited) grammar that tests for constant positional relations, between anything expressible in constant relations. But because positional relations (ideals) have no limits until applied to real world phenomenon under intertemporal change (reals), they scale infinitely when discussing the model (ideals), if not when applying to reality (the reals). Any set of percievable properties can be expressed in some logic, and our language contains a surprisingly small set of constant relations to test ( just over a dozen), aside from the complexity that arises from the five senses and the relations (Relation (Preposition/Postposition) > Link (Conjunction > Copula ) ) for which english has a host of terms. So in this sense our language can express promises of weights and measures using those experiences, and operational grammar limits us to those which are independent weights and measures. the measure of Value is provide only by: demonstrated action. Either individual investment or reciprocal trade. Like a balance scale without something to balance (trade) all measures of value are arbitrary. So Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism, with the tests of agency(limits) and reciprocity(scope) when stated in operational prose constitute a grammar of subjective value independent continuous constant relations between existence and actions and testimony, while filtering out any and all subjective values, normative values, institutional values, and fictions – making it very difficult to engage in fraud by obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit. There is very little difference between mathematics and operational language (acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism) other than mathematics consists of one dimension of constant relations, and operational consists of many (a dozen or so plus sensory and relational weights and measure), and limits inconstant relations ( subjective, normative, traditional, institutional ) values (weights and measures) from the discourse for the simple reason that they are in fact *inconstant relations*. That is not to say that we can’t engage in all sorts of conversation that contains inconstant relations that may be relatively constant between members of a polity. It means that in matters of conflict, those differences remain open to analysis and criticism, and their differences perfectly, always, and everywhere decidable. The central problem of history is failing to separate the constant relations from the inconstant relations, because until we had international law, most juridical decisions were both local, and within local subjective(inconstant) weights and measure (values), and most legislation, regulation, and command imposed inconstant relations upon local polities. In my view this is not very complicated. But the purpose of via-negativa law (and our ability to create a strictly constructed uninterpretable constitution, or even white sharia, or another inquisition) is not the same as telling inspirational stories to the kiddies. Hence why those who rule use law, those who rally use fictions, and those who cooperate use trade. Seriously. Weights and Measures. It’s not complicated.

  • When You Criticize Propertarianism You”re Almost Certainly Wrong

    (REALLY) Any criticism of Propertarianism (Natural Law consisting of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism) will require fictions, deceptions, and frauds – which I acknowledge are successful means of persuading humans ‘cheaply’. And every criticism I have heard, appears Postmodern (Truth is coherence within the socially constructed frame(paradigm) rather than decidable independent of frames (paradigms)). And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness. And that the aristocracy used this invention to profit from the continuous domestication of pre-human animals (men) such that the society produced agency and therefore made the aristocracy capable of increasing their numbers, such that they could continue to fight with their successful military strategy (combining technology, maneuver, and independent creative tactics. IT’S NOT COMPLICATED Look, it’s not complicated. Mathematics is a deflationary (limited) grammar that tests for constant positional relations, between anything expressible in constant relations. But because positional relations (ideals) have no limits until applied to real world phenomenon under intertemporal change (reals), they scale infinitely when discussing the model (ideals), if not when applying to reality (the reals). Any set of percievable properties can be expressed in some logic, and our language contains a surprisingly small set of constant relations to test ( just over a dozen), aside from the complexity that arises from the five senses and the relations (Relation (Preposition/Postposition) > Link (Conjunction > Copula ) ) for which english has a host of terms. So in this sense our language can express promises of weights and measures using those experiences, and operational grammar limits us to those which are independent weights and measures. the measure of Value is provide only by: demonstrated action. Either individual investment or reciprocal trade. Like a balance scale without something to balance (trade) all measures of value are arbitrary. So Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism, with the tests of agency(limits) and reciprocity(scope) when stated in operational prose constitute a grammar of subjective value independent continuous constant relations between existence and actions and testimony, while filtering out any and all subjective values, normative values, institutional values, and fictions – making it very difficult to engage in fraud by obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit. There is very little difference between mathematics and operational language (acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism) other than mathematics consists of one dimension of constant relations, and operational consists of many (a dozen or so plus sensory and relational weights and measure), and limits inconstant relations ( subjective, normative, traditional, institutional ) values (weights and measures) from the discourse for the simple reason that they are in fact *inconstant relations*. That is not to say that we can’t engage in all sorts of conversation that contains inconstant relations that may be relatively constant between members of a polity. It means that in matters of conflict, those differences remain open to analysis and criticism, and their differences perfectly, always, and everywhere decidable. The central problem of history is failing to separate the constant relations from the inconstant relations, because until we had international law, most juridical decisions were both local, and within local subjective(inconstant) weights and measure (values), and most legislation, regulation, and command imposed inconstant relations upon local polities. In my view this is not very complicated. But the purpose of via-negativa law (and our ability to create a strictly constructed uninterpretable constitution, or even white sharia, or another inquisition) is not the same as telling inspirational stories to the kiddies. Hence why those who rule use law, those who rally use fictions, and those who cooperate use trade. Seriously. Weights and Measures. It’s not complicated.

  • Rebuttals of A Theist

    1) Law, particularly western empirical law of tort, under presumption of sovereignty and therefore demand for reciprocity existed before idealism (mathematics), criticism (socrates), justification (plato), and empiricism (Aristotle), and their concluding movement (Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Roman Law). (Despite Augustine’s attempt to combine jewish law’s justificationism using pilpul and critique, with the greek thinkers use of idealism, and abandoning the result of the greek experiment: roman law, empiricism, stoicism, epicureanism, and tolerance for local cult and custom. ) 1) —“Rebutting the claims of an existing creator?”— Means, motive, opportunity, evidence, method of argument. The motive is to create a lie using false threats and promises to provide the individual with immunity from the labor of reason, accept his position in life, and act obediently to priests, in exchange for monies (and in europe, lands). While at the same time ending the practice of literacy and preserving literacy only within the authoritarian system of deceits. 2) —“Or refuting the resurrection theory?”— Means, motive, opportunity, evidence, method of argument. Evidence is that this was all compiled from preexisting myths, and other than some otherwise indiscriminate fellow being crucified for agitating against the profiteering by jewish priests, the rest of the story is a fabrication, not the least of which was initiated by Saul of Tarsus. People love to buy drugs.

  • Rebuttals of A Theist

    1) Law, particularly western empirical law of tort, under presumption of sovereignty and therefore demand for reciprocity existed before idealism (mathematics), criticism (socrates), justification (plato), and empiricism (Aristotle), and their concluding movement (Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Roman Law). (Despite Augustine’s attempt to combine jewish law’s justificationism using pilpul and critique, with the greek thinkers use of idealism, and abandoning the result of the greek experiment: roman law, empiricism, stoicism, epicureanism, and tolerance for local cult and custom. ) 1) —“Rebutting the claims of an existing creator?”— Means, motive, opportunity, evidence, method of argument. The motive is to create a lie using false threats and promises to provide the individual with immunity from the labor of reason, accept his position in life, and act obediently to priests, in exchange for monies (and in europe, lands). While at the same time ending the practice of literacy and preserving literacy only within the authoritarian system of deceits. 2) —“Or refuting the resurrection theory?”— Means, motive, opportunity, evidence, method of argument. Evidence is that this was all compiled from preexisting myths, and other than some otherwise indiscriminate fellow being crucified for agitating against the profiteering by jewish priests, the rest of the story is a fabrication, not the least of which was initiated by Saul of Tarsus. People love to buy drugs.

  • “I’m up for via-negativa law, via-positiva fiction, and via-reciprocity trade.”-

    —“I’m up for via-negativa law, via-positiva fiction, and via-reciprocity trade.”— Bryan Nova Brey

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 17:33:00 UTC