Curt Doolittle

Theme: Religion

  • No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one

    No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one hand and science, cognitive science, natural law (reciprocity), economics on the other. In other words, between that which is free of fictionalism and that which is not. The question remains, we can learn from history, biography, science, economics, or we can learn from the narrative, archetypes and plots, or we can learn from religion, philosophy, and the occult. There is reason we identify ‘fictionalisms’ in each discipline (and I have worked on this subject for the past ten years), and that is because they are self referential rather than suffering and surviving the test of falsification by demonstration. As far as I know, assuming that we separate the study of grammar (continuous disambiguation), logic(formal disambiguation), semantics(constant relations), and paradigms (networks of constant relations), that it is very difficult to find a question asked in any philosophy that is not simply avoidance of science(the sciences), natural law (reciprocity), and economics(results of cooperation) for the purpose of avoiding the falsification of what which which values as either immoral, or deflating of status, and self confidence. As such philosophy is currently used for the purpose of self help, which is to provide pseudoscientific or pseudo rational justification of intuitions and priors so that individuals develop the courage to act or tolerate their status: social, sexual, economic, political, and military value. Or it is used to avoid the high cost of learning rationalism over religion, or science over rationalism.

  • No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one

    No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one hand and science, cognitive science, natural law (reciprocity), economics on the other. In other words, between that which is free of fictionalism and that which is not.

    The question remains, we can learn from history, biography, science, economics, or we can learn from the narrative, archetypes and plots, or we can learn from religion, philosophy, and the occult.

    There is reason we identify ‘fictionalisms’ in each discipline (and I have worked on this subject for the past ten years), and that is because they are self referential rather than suffering and surviving the test of falsification by demonstration.

    As far as I know, assuming that we separate the study of grammar (continuous disambiguation), logic(formal disambiguation), semantics(constant relations), and paradigms (networks of constant relations), that it is very difficult to find a question asked in any philosophy that is not simply avoidance of science(the sciences), natural law (reciprocity), and economics(results of cooperation) for the purpose of avoiding the falsification of what which which values as either immoral, or deflating of status, and self confidence.

    As such philosophy is currently used for the purpose of self help, which is to provide pseudoscientific or pseudo rational justification of intuitions and priors so that individuals develop the courage to act or tolerate their status: social, sexual, economic, political, and military value. Or it is used to avoid the high cost of learning rationalism over religion, or science over rationalism.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 08:34:00 UTC

  • No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one

    No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one hand and science, cognitive science, natural law (reciprocity), economics on the other. In other words, between that which is free of fictionalism and that which is not. The question remains, we can learn from history, biography, science, economics, or we can learn from the narrative, archetypes and plots, or we can learn from religion, philosophy, and the occult. There is reason we identify ‘fictionalisms’ in each discipline (and I have worked on this subject for the past ten years), and that is because they are self referential rather than suffering and surviving the test of falsification by demonstration. As far as I know, assuming that we separate the study of grammar (continuous disambiguation), logic(formal disambiguation), semantics(constant relations), and paradigms (networks of constant relations), that it is very difficult to find a question asked in any philosophy that is not simply avoidance of science(the sciences), natural law (reciprocity), and economics(results of cooperation) for the purpose of avoiding the falsification of what which which values as either immoral, or deflating of status, and self confidence. As such philosophy is currently used for the purpose of self help, which is to provide pseudoscientific or pseudo rational justification of intuitions and priors so that individuals develop the courage to act or tolerate their status: social, sexual, economic, political, and military value. Or it is used to avoid the high cost of learning rationalism over religion, or science over rationalism.

  • one determines a christian by comparing him to observers of other religions. If

    one determines a christian by comparing him to observers of other religions. If we produce christian actions (exhaustive extension of kinship love to non-kin)then we are de-facto christians. It’s not adherence to dogma (falsehoods) to pay the price of admission. It’s how we live.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 00:12:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974075717196615681

    Reply addressees: @michaelsw

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/969699229298913280

    IN REPLY TO:

    @michaelsw

    Asking whether or not #JordanPeterson is a Christian might be a bad question. We don’t dismiss someone and what they have to say based on whether or not they are a believer. Better question(s). Is he speaking the truth? Is he challenging faulty philosophical presuppositions?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/969699229298913280

  • Why explain a metaphorical god? That’s ridiculous. There must be … thousands o

    Why explain a metaphorical god? That’s ridiculous. There must be … thousands of authors who’ve discussed it in depth. Peterson is a psychologist by profession, and specializes in teaching by narrative analogy – especially using archetypes. ???

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-15 00:08:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974074908790706178

    Reply addressees: @ethanander @jordanbpeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973334000415772673

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973334000415772673

  • I trash all civilizations equally because my job is to trash pseudoscience and a

    I trash all civilizations equally because my job is to trash pseudoscience and abrahamic pseudo rationalism. I trash my own most vehemently. So please monitory your postmodern infantilism while adults are in the room.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 18:30:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973989860984999937

    Reply addressees: @sonshi_com

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973987545280376833

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973987545280376833

  • So in closing, think of mathematical terminology like a language of theology ref

    So in closing, think of mathematical terminology like a language of theology referencing a heaven that doesn’t exist. That does not however stop the monks from growing food, fermenting beer, performing clerical services, and generally pretending that they have sacred knowledge.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 17:50:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973979690972131336

    Reply addressees: @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973979127433846784

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman Math is, like law, one of those disciplines that is terribly simple and it’s access limited to a priesthood willing to make use of the priestly vocabulary as a signal of conformity. Unfortunately mathematical pseudoscience in economics has been possible because of platonism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973979127433846784

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman Math is, like law, one of those disciplines that is terribly simple and it’s access limited to a priesthood willing to make use of the priestly vocabulary as a signal of conformity. Unfortunately mathematical pseudoscience in economics has been possible because of platonism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973979127433846784

  • so with inconstant relations. And mathematicians are very little different from

    … so with inconstant relations. And mathematicians are very little different from medieval monks inventing nonsense language to justify a very simple moral code by which to extract rents from the population in return for training them to extend kinship trust to non-kin.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-14 17:46:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973978775695319043

    Reply addressees: @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973978477593616385

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman So mathematics is very simple. It’s consists of the use of positional names to create general rules of arbitrary precision using some number of dimensions of causality. In other words, it’s the discipline of measurement. It is highly successful in constant relations and less …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973978477593616385

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ProfessorLarp @GolfNorman So mathematics is very simple. It’s consists of the use of positional names to create general rules of arbitrary precision using some number of dimensions of causality. In other words, it’s the discipline of measurement. It is highly successful in constant relations and less …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973978477593616385

  • The only reason the Jewish “counter enlightenment’ matters more than the previou

    The only reason the Jewish “counter enlightenment’ matters more than the previous (all of which have led to conflicts) is that we are exiting it now, and have been since sometime around 1990 – and we have been locally influenced whereas previous events have been at arms length.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 23:30:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973702810016665600

    Reply addressees: @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas @TOOEdit

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973702103100248064

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas I was unaware of Macdonald until 2012 and came to precisely the same conclusions. The only difference was that I was trying to understand western group evolutionary strategy, and why it was unarticulated in a canon other than our common law. Fukuyama partly satisfies it. @TOOEdit

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973702103100248064

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @LibertyBrekfast @nathancofnas I was unaware of Macdonald until 2012 and came to precisely the same conclusions. The only difference was that I was trying to understand western group evolutionary strategy, and why it was unarticulated in a canon other than our common law. Fukuyama partly satisfies it. @TOOEdit

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/973702103100248064

  • Anglo sovereign, empirical and deflationary, vs french moral and communal and ge

    Anglo sovereign, empirical and deflationary, vs french moral and communal and german rational and dutiful. Continental = secular theology.. Kant could not deflate the logics and created an exceptional replacement of theology with rationalism. 😉 Sorry. It is what it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-13 04:16:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973412455014699009

    Reply addressees: @ergo_praxis @nathancofnas

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973410156099833858

    IN REPLY TO:

    @ergo_praxis

    @curtdoolittle @nathancofnas >Kant
    >Counter-enlightenment

    >Correct

    This is what reactionaries ACTUALLY believe.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/973410156099833858