Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • Duty vs Obligation

    —“In the series: “…what we may not do: violate truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets…” I’ve noticed a new term in the series: DUTY. Why?”— Daniel Gurpide Thanks for Asking: Contracts: Rights (positiva) vs Obligations (negativa). Commons: Reciprocity(positiva) vs Duty (negativa)

  • Duty vs Obligation

    —“In the series: “…what we may not do: violate truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets…” I’ve noticed a new term in the series: DUTY. Why?”— Daniel Gurpide Thanks for Asking: Contracts: Rights (positiva) vs Obligations (negativa). Commons: Reciprocity(positiva) vs Duty (negativa)

  • DUTY VS OBLIGATION —“In the series: “…what we may not do: violate truth, sov

    DUTY VS OBLIGATION

    —“In the series: “…what we may not do: violate truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, duty, markets…” I’ve noticed a new term in the series: DUTY. Why?”— Daniel Gurpide

    Thanks for Asking:

    Contracts: Rights (positiva) vs Obligations (negativa).

    Commons: Reciprocity(positiva) vs Duty (negativa)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 10:53:00 UTC

  • “Natural Law Fundamentalism”– Well, don’t be an idiot. Of COURSE that’s what I’

    —“Natural Law Fundamentalism”–

    Well, don’t be an idiot.
    Of COURSE that’s what I’m doing.
    The most intolerant wins.
    And Truth is the most intolerant measure of of all.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-13 22:52:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995798987243511810

  • —“Natural Law Fundamentalism”–

    Well, don’t be an idiot. Of COURSE that’s what I’m doing. The most intolerant wins. And Truth is the most intolerant of all.

  • —“Natural Law Fundamentalism”–

    Well, don’t be an idiot. Of COURSE that’s what I’m doing. The most intolerant wins. And Truth is the most intolerant of all.

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/32385097_10156352923387264_73020638

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/32385097_10156352923387264_7302063862038134784_n_10156352923382264.jpg JANUS MASK

    Past (via-negativa),

    Present (via-reciprocity),

    and Future (via-positiva).Brendan HegartyLu also sports this look in Gaul sometimes… IDK why though? Gauls didnt like to write things.May 13, 2018 10:58amBrendan HegartyMay 13, 2018 10:59amCurt Doolittlea lot of cultures valued memorization as a selection criteria and those who made livings on memories had no incentive for writing.May 13, 2018 10:59amBrendan HegartyMy IDK was for his tricephale not the non writingsMay 13, 2018 11:00amCurt DoolittleTaxation made writing necessary because the data was too irregular, and beyond our ability to recall.May 13, 2018 11:00amCurt DoolittleUm, don’t know the era of that illustration. Janus’ origins are not known, but the idea and name appear to have been IE, even if the god itself was a roman invention.May 13, 2018 11:02amBrendan Hegarty”Bas-relief discovered in Paris in 1867 and preserved at the Carnavalet Museum, from J.-L. Courcelle-Seneuil, Les Dieux gaulois d’après les monuments figurés (The Gallic Gods According to the Figurative Monuments), Paris, 1910.

    “May 13, 2018 11:04amCurt Doolittle—“Rübekeil[28] suggests that Lugus was a triune god, comprising Esus, Toutatis and Taranis, the three chief deities mentioned by Lucan (who, at the same time, makes no mention of Lugus), and that pre-Proto-Germanic tribes in contact with the Celts (possibly the Chatti) moulded aspects of Lugus into the Germanic god Wōdanaz i.e. that Gaulish Mercury gave rise to Germanic Mercury.”—

    Now, that makes sense.May 13, 2018 11:09amCurt Doolittlethe three faces is cool, but the three penises …. I’m thinking how fun a triple orgasm would be….May 13, 2018 11:09amBrendan Hegartylolz Celtic mythology seems sometimes as the most disorganized thing on earth I swearMay 13, 2018 11:11amCurt Doolittleit’s because it was more like folk tales to them than religion.May 13, 2018 11:12amBrendan HegartyThere was never a Homer for them I suppose to organize them into something coherent.May 13, 2018 11:13amCharlton WardI’ve seen a few that only have two faces, only future and past. From the Romans

    First thing I thought when I saw this was “holy trinity/christianity”May 13, 2018 11:17amBill JoslinI’d challenge the last point.

    There are ancient arguments against the adoption of writting. It boils down to: writting loses the transfer of context when passed down through the generations. This opens up misunderstanding and error.

    Druids refused to write down their knowledge (which was apparently as sophisticated as the romans as per Areilius) for this very reason. Simply put- we don’t really know what they knew.

    Crushing the Celts (in all forms) by Rome might have more to do with crushing an upcoming civilizational competitor rather than stamping out a barbaric nuisanceMay 13, 2018 11:21amCurt Doolittle^of course it did.May 13, 2018 11:25amAloysius AugustusRECIPROCITY. ❤️May 13, 2018 11:35amNicholas SmithReminds me of the Slavic three face godMay 13, 2018 1:08pmCurt DoolittleyepMay 13, 2018 1:09pmYiannis KontinopoulosVia negativa – NAP

    Reciprocity – Mindfulness

    Positiva – VirtueMay 13, 2018 1:26pmCurt Doolittlenap is bullshit, but non imposition will do. that’s what you’re looking for. Otherwise that’s pretty good.May 13, 2018 2:06pmYiannis KontinopoulosHey Curt, thanks. Can you please link me to somewhere where you discuss on non-imposition per se so I can read into it?May 13, 2018 2:11pmCurt Doolittlehttps://propertarianism.com/2015/07/27/a-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2/May 13, 2018 2:17pmToby MckinnonIs Propertarianism the path to the underverse? N E C R O M O N G E RMay 13, 2018 7:07pmCurt Doolittledon’t get me sexually excited… lolMay 13, 2018 7:12pmYiannis KontinopoulosMuch appreciated!May 13, 2018 7:26pmFawzi M. ChalaFunny you mentioned Janus . every time i bump into the liars/two timers that i know i call them son/daughter of janusMay 13, 2018 8:30pmJesse Schultzcool anus maskMay 13, 2018 10:15pmBill JoslinIsn’t this the mask from the movie Riddick?May 13, 2018 10:23pmBill JoslinMay 13, 2018 10:24pmHelga OdalThis can still be a day of days..May 16, 2018 12:21amJANUS MASK

    Past (via-negativa),

    Present (via-reciprocity),

    and Future (via-positiva).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-13 10:51:00 UTC

  • Is Objective Morality Possible? how Do We Know?

    It’s actually pretty easy: 1) Empirically, (in-group) law evolved everywhere using a test of reciprocity. Even norms demand reciprocity. All that differs is the local organization of rights and obligations that produce various forms of reciprocity under various group evolutionary strategies. 2) Empirically, (out-group) international law, that is insulated by differences as a compromise between differences is reducible to reciprocity. 3) Logically, (internal consistency) all questions of conflict are in fact decidable by the test of reciprocity, and it is the only decidability that exists that I know of. 4) Scientifically (Axelrod) (operationally), no organism can both cooperate (produce outsized returns), and not (a) preserve defection (cheating), and (b) require reciprocity (prevent parasitism), and (c) buy options on cooperation (invest) to incentivize cooperation, and (d) practice altruistic punishment (costly punishment) in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate without going extinct. So: 0 – Parties must be able to negotiate a contract for cooperation and remember success or failure for cooperation to exist. (We cannot cooperate with animals. They aren’t conscious enough to do so, or to hold to commitments.) 1 – Objective morality (reciprocity) is in fact ‘reciprocity’. 2 – Moral norms (networks of reciprocity) 3 – Moral intuitions ( individual intuition of reciprocity given one’s reproductive/survival needs) 4 – Moral actions are limited to fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. And 1 – Restoration of reciprocity by forgiveness (investment in future forgiveness) 2 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution 3 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution and punishment 4 – restoration of incentive for reciprocity by restitution and death. Ergo 1 – one may take no action one may not perform restitution for. All of which pretty much are reflected in the common law of tort.

  • Is Objective Morality Possible? how Do We Know?

    It’s actually pretty easy: 1) Empirically, (in-group) law evolved everywhere using a test of reciprocity. Even norms demand reciprocity. All that differs is the local organization of rights and obligations that produce various forms of reciprocity under various group evolutionary strategies. 2) Empirically, (out-group) international law, that is insulated by differences as a compromise between differences is reducible to reciprocity. 3) Logically, (internal consistency) all questions of conflict are in fact decidable by the test of reciprocity, and it is the only decidability that exists that I know of. 4) Scientifically (Axelrod) (operationally), no organism can both cooperate (produce outsized returns), and not (a) preserve defection (cheating), and (b) require reciprocity (prevent parasitism), and (c) buy options on cooperation (invest) to incentivize cooperation, and (d) practice altruistic punishment (costly punishment) in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate without going extinct. So: 0 – Parties must be able to negotiate a contract for cooperation and remember success or failure for cooperation to exist. (We cannot cooperate with animals. They aren’t conscious enough to do so, or to hold to commitments.) 1 – Objective morality (reciprocity) is in fact ‘reciprocity’. 2 – Moral norms (networks of reciprocity) 3 – Moral intuitions ( individual intuition of reciprocity given one’s reproductive/survival needs) 4 – Moral actions are limited to fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. And 1 – Restoration of reciprocity by forgiveness (investment in future forgiveness) 2 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution 3 – restoration of reciprocity by restitution and punishment 4 – restoration of incentive for reciprocity by restitution and death. Ergo 1 – one may take no action one may not perform restitution for. All of which pretty much are reflected in the common law of tort.

  • 2) … , and if including choice, rational choice (praxeologiccal consistency),

    2) … , and if including choice, rational choice (praxeologiccal consistency), and if including reciprocity (morality: reciprocal praxeological consistency), then we do not know if we have falsified our fantasies (free associations). Confirmations don’t tell us anything.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-11 20:39:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995040787736997888

    Reply addressees: @Noblesm85

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/995040281740365825

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Noblesm85 1) I don’t think you understand that logics are not closed – they only test possibility (survivability) and without categorical consistency, logical consistency (internal consistency) operational consistency (existential possibility), full accounting, parsimony, and limits ….

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/995040281740365825

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Noblesm85 1) I don’t think you understand that logics are not closed – they only test possibility (survivability) and without categorical consistency, logical consistency (internal consistency) operational consistency (existential possibility), full accounting, parsimony, and limits ….

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/995040281740365825