Curt Doolittle

Theme: Religion

  • Why I Am A Christian

    It is pretty hard to be better than a good christian for the simple reason that the path to goodness – now from catholics as well as protestants – is ‘personal (direct) works of charity’ toward those in your proximity. (and I argue that all else is just virtue signaling – a kind of fraud and the opposite of the christian mandate). The principle virtue of such a mandate is that it’s entirely empirical. It’s deeds(actions) not beliefs(self congratulations) or rituals (self insulations). There is no better theology than action in the service of others. If you can do so my charity (caretaking). If you can do so by production (trade) If you can do so by war (violence) Germanicized Christianity (as of vatican II, we are all protestants now) creates the civil society. Everything else is just virtue signaling so someone else does the work, pays the costs, or takes the risk, and you can feel good about escaping from it.

  • WHY I AM A CHRISTIAN It is pretty hard to be better than a good christian for th

    WHY I AM A CHRISTIAN

    It is pretty hard to be better than a good christian for the simple reason that the path to goodness – now from catholics as well as protestants – is ‘personal (direct) works of charity’ toward those in your proximity.

    (and I argue that all else is just virtue signaling – a kind of fraud and the opposite of the christian mandate).

    The principle virtue of such a mandate is that it’s entirely empirical. It’s deeds(actions) not beliefs(self congratulations) or rituals (self insulations).

    There is no better theology than action in the service of others.

    If you can do so my charity (caretaking).

    If you can do so by production (trade)

    If you can do so by war (violence)

    Germanicized Christianity (as of vatican II, we are all protestants now) creates the civil society.

    Everything else is just virtue signaling so someone else does the work, pays the costs, or takes the risk, and you can feel good about escaping from it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-11 12:18:00 UTC

  • Why I Am A Christian

    It is pretty hard to be better than a good christian for the simple reason that the path to goodness – now from catholics as well as protestants – is ‘personal (direct) works of charity’ toward those in your proximity. (and I argue that all else is just virtue signaling – a kind of fraud and the opposite of the christian mandate). The principle virtue of such a mandate is that it’s entirely empirical. It’s deeds(actions) not beliefs(self congratulations) or rituals (self insulations). There is no better theology than action in the service of others. If you can do so my charity (caretaking). If you can do so by production (trade) If you can do so by war (violence) Germanicized Christianity (as of vatican II, we are all protestants now) creates the civil society. Everything else is just virtue signaling so someone else does the work, pays the costs, or takes the risk, and you can feel good about escaping from it.

  • The Spectrum Of Referents We Call Gods

    I dunno. I think we just use the word ‘god’ to represent increasingly poetic references. It’s the simple people for whom that poetry is existential and anthropomorphic, common people for whom it is literary, atheists who are in between (‘educated’) for whom it is pseudoscience or deceit, and the sophisticated people for whom it is poetry (aesthetic). I talk to my god every day. But my understanding of ‘god’ would to an atheist make sense, but be silly. To an ordinary person not refer to god at all, and to literalists be atheism. The reason people at the bottom are more attracted to the divine is to ‘know’ right action, feeling, and belief, and take comfort in right action, feeling, and belief, and therefore giving them confidence in right action, feeling, and belief – without being persuaded (manipulated) by those with greater abilities and lower ethics and morality. In other words, religions give people a shield against guilt, manipulation, coercion, and risk. Religion was successful because mindfulness(certainty, clarity, confidence) is increasingly necessary as you move left on the curve. I have been working on this question for I think three or four years now and the phenomenon is widespread, and not limited to religion, but philosophy, and the modern social pseudosciences, and even literature. We evolved in bands where the entire group functioned as a single distributed nervous system. We prospered by extending our numbers beyond our ability to perceive. So we needed rules (limits) and goods (objectives), and we eventually needed writing, numbers, money (prices really), and governments (commons), to coordinate our actions in large numbers. But while we gained increasingly diverse physical certainties, they came at the high cost of mental and emotional certainties. At this point we are comforted primarily by consumption and (at least in america) we are seeing extraordinary increases in suicide among the aged. So we are extremely ‘alone’. And as alone we search for some sort of membership and shared understanding, by which to obtain the certainty of our evolutionary history in bands. Hence the expansion of social media among the verbally acute.

  • THE SPECTRUM OF REFERENTS WE CALL GODS I dunno. I think we just use the word ‘go

    THE SPECTRUM OF REFERENTS WE CALL GODS

    I dunno. I think we just use the word ‘god’ to represent increasingly poetic references. It’s the simple people for whom that poetry is existential and anthropomorphic, common people for whom it is literary, atheists who are in between (‘educated’) for whom it is pseudoscience or deceit, and the sophisticated people for whom it is poetry (aesthetic).

    I talk to my god every day. But my understanding of ‘god’ would to an atheist make sense, but be silly. To an ordinary person not refer to god at all, and to literalists be atheism.

    The reason people at the bottom are more attracted to the divine is to ‘know’ right action, feeling, and belief, and take comfort in right action, feeling, and belief, and therefore giving them confidence in right action, feeling, and belief – without being persuaded (manipulated) by those with greater abilities and lower ethics and morality. In other words, religions give people a shield against guilt, manipulation, coercion, and risk.

    Religion was successful because mindfulness(certainty, clarity, confidence) is increasingly necessary as you move left on the curve.

    I have been working on this question for I think three or four years now and the phenomenon is widespread, and not limited to religion, but philosophy, and the modern social pseudosciences, and even literature.

    We evolved in bands where the entire group functioned as a single distributed nervous system. We prospered by extending our numbers beyond our ability to perceive. So we needed rules (limits) and goods (objectives), and we eventually needed writing, numbers, money (prices really), and governments (commons), to coordinate our actions in large numbers.

    But while we gained increasingly diverse physical certainties, they came at the high cost of mental and emotional certainties. At this point we are comforted primarily by consumption and (at least in america) we are seeing extraordinary increases in suicide among the aged. So we are extremely ‘alone’. And as alone we search for some sort of membership and shared understanding, by which to obtain the certainty of our evolutionary history in bands.

    Hence the expansion of social media among the verbally acute.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-11 09:44:00 UTC

  • The Spectrum Of Referents We Call Gods

    I dunno. I think we just use the word ‘god’ to represent increasingly poetic references. It’s the simple people for whom that poetry is existential and anthropomorphic, common people for whom it is literary, atheists who are in between (‘educated’) for whom it is pseudoscience or deceit, and the sophisticated people for whom it is poetry (aesthetic). I talk to my god every day. But my understanding of ‘god’ would to an atheist make sense, but be silly. To an ordinary person not refer to god at all, and to literalists be atheism. The reason people at the bottom are more attracted to the divine is to ‘know’ right action, feeling, and belief, and take comfort in right action, feeling, and belief, and therefore giving them confidence in right action, feeling, and belief – without being persuaded (manipulated) by those with greater abilities and lower ethics and morality. In other words, religions give people a shield against guilt, manipulation, coercion, and risk. Religion was successful because mindfulness(certainty, clarity, confidence) is increasingly necessary as you move left on the curve. I have been working on this question for I think three or four years now and the phenomenon is widespread, and not limited to religion, but philosophy, and the modern social pseudosciences, and even literature. We evolved in bands where the entire group functioned as a single distributed nervous system. We prospered by extending our numbers beyond our ability to perceive. So we needed rules (limits) and goods (objectives), and we eventually needed writing, numbers, money (prices really), and governments (commons), to coordinate our actions in large numbers. But while we gained increasingly diverse physical certainties, they came at the high cost of mental and emotional certainties. At this point we are comforted primarily by consumption and (at least in america) we are seeing extraordinary increases in suicide among the aged. So we are extremely ‘alone’. And as alone we search for some sort of membership and shared understanding, by which to obtain the certainty of our evolutionary history in bands. Hence the expansion of social media among the verbally acute.

  • Why Do We Own A Rifle?

    1 – To continue the evolutionary progress of my people by preventing the usurpation of sovereignty of my kin by foreign invasion whether normative, cultural, religious, institutional, military, or demographic. 2 – To overthrow governments that by accumulated impositions of convenience incrementally deprive us of our rights as englishmen (warriors of the militia), and to replace it with a new generation of government that restores those rights: a) reciprocity without exception, b) universal standing, and c) universal applicability. 3 – To prevent the low from profiting by the criminal, unethical, and immoral. 4 – To levy retribution upon and demand restitution of the wicked. 5 – To prevent the indolent, lazy, and inferior from parasitism upon the private and common: my kin’s production of the intergenerational family and its assets. both personal, private, shareheld, common, and political. Western civilization began, evolved, and is maintained by nothing more than the militia. This is what differentiates the west from the rest. All that is unique and exceptional about western civilization from our law, our reason, our science, our institutions, our culture, and our mythology, begins with the distribution of capital and our intolerance for its centralization. Period. Ergo, the a personal rifle capable of war, revolution, prosecution, conviction, restitution and defense, is the minimum necessary arms by which a member of the militia persists the civlization of the militia: the west. And he who would demote the militia or disarm it by definition declares war on me, my kin, my people, my state, and civilization, and by proxy, all mankind – given our disproportionate contribution to dragging humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, infant morality, early death, disease, and tyranny. There is no greater crime against humanity than to deprive me of my weaponry. If you declare war on me and mine we will, without exception withdraw our consent, and damage, harm, kill any and al that you hold dear. I AM SOVEREIGN. ALL MILITIA ARE SOVEREIGN. WE ARE SOVEREIGNTY BY THE SINGLE LAW OF RECIPROCITY IN ALL THINGS INCLUDING THE RECIPROCAL INSURANCE OF ONE ANOTHER’S SOVEREIGNTY BY FORCE OF ARMS.

  • WHY DO WE OWN A RIFLE? 1 – To continue the evolutionary progress of my people by

    WHY DO WE OWN A RIFLE?

    1 – To continue the evolutionary progress of my people by preventing the usurpation of sovereignty of my kin by foreign invasion whether normative, cultural, religious, institutional, military, or demographic.

    2 – To overthrow governments that by accumulated impositions of convenience incrementally deprive us of our rights as englishmen (warriors of the militia), and to replace it with a new generation of government that restores those rights:

    a) reciprocity without exception,

    b) universal standing, and

    c) universal applicability.

    3 – To prevent the low from profiting by the criminal, unethical, and immoral.

    4 – To levy retribution upon and demand restitution of the wicked.

    5 – To prevent the indolent, lazy, and inferior from parasitism upon the private and common: my kin’s production of the intergenerational family and its assets. both personal, private, shareheld, common, and political.

    Western civilization began, evolved, and is maintained by nothing more than the militia. This is what differentiates the west from the rest. All that is unique and exceptional about western civilization from our law, our reason, our science, our institutions, our culture, and our mythology, begins with the distribution of capital and our intolerance for its centralization.

    Period.

    Ergo, the a personal rifle capable of war, revolution, prosecution, conviction, restitution and defense, is the minimum necessary arms by which a member of the militia persists the civlization of the militia: the west.

    And he who would demote the militia or disarm it by definition declares war on me, my kin, my people, my state, and civilization, and by proxy, all mankind – given our disproportionate contribution to dragging humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, infant morality, early death, disease, and tyranny.

    There is no greater crime against humanity than to deprive me of my weaponry.

    If you declare war on me and mine we will, without exception withdraw our consent, and damage, harm, kill any and al that you hold dear.

    I AM SOVEREIGN. ALL MILITIA ARE SOVEREIGN. WE ARE SOVEREIGNTY BY THE SINGLE LAW OF RECIPROCITY IN ALL THINGS

    INCLUDING THE RECIPROCAL INSURANCE OF ONE ANOTHER’S SOVEREIGNTY BY FORCE OF ARMS.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-08 20:38:00 UTC

  • Why Do We Own A Rifle?

    1 – To continue the evolutionary progress of my people by preventing the usurpation of sovereignty of my kin by foreign invasion whether normative, cultural, religious, institutional, military, or demographic. 2 – To overthrow governments that by accumulated impositions of convenience incrementally deprive us of our rights as englishmen (warriors of the militia), and to replace it with a new generation of government that restores those rights: a) reciprocity without exception, b) universal standing, and c) universal applicability. 3 – To prevent the low from profiting by the criminal, unethical, and immoral. 4 – To levy retribution upon and demand restitution of the wicked. 5 – To prevent the indolent, lazy, and inferior from parasitism upon the private and common: my kin’s production of the intergenerational family and its assets. both personal, private, shareheld, common, and political. Western civilization began, evolved, and is maintained by nothing more than the militia. This is what differentiates the west from the rest. All that is unique and exceptional about western civilization from our law, our reason, our science, our institutions, our culture, and our mythology, begins with the distribution of capital and our intolerance for its centralization. Period. Ergo, the a personal rifle capable of war, revolution, prosecution, conviction, restitution and defense, is the minimum necessary arms by which a member of the militia persists the civlization of the militia: the west. And he who would demote the militia or disarm it by definition declares war on me, my kin, my people, my state, and civilization, and by proxy, all mankind – given our disproportionate contribution to dragging humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, infant morality, early death, disease, and tyranny. There is no greater crime against humanity than to deprive me of my weaponry. If you declare war on me and mine we will, without exception withdraw our consent, and damage, harm, kill any and al that you hold dear. I AM SOVEREIGN. ALL MILITIA ARE SOVEREIGN. WE ARE SOVEREIGNTY BY THE SINGLE LAW OF RECIPROCITY IN ALL THINGS INCLUDING THE RECIPROCAL INSURANCE OF ONE ANOTHER’S SOVEREIGNTY BY FORCE OF ARMS.

  • The Non-Monopoly Of Western Philosophy

    I think the answer is that we need to specialize and have the market do its job as did the pagans – and not try to create another abrahamic monolithic framework. The framework that developed the west is competition (m arkets) and a division of powers, and an absence of a clerical class, with civic duties performed by the monarchy, nobility, and lesser nobility (influential citizens). Markets in everything. Via positiva (narratives/inflating and loading) via negativa (calculation and unloading/deflating). If people compare me to one or the other then I’m going attack peterson justifiably. If people think peterson is right, then they’re simply wrong. He’s informative, explanatory, and accessible the same way that storytelling is more accessible than calculation. Via Negativa does not sell except as a defense because it is not the means by which we form narratives that allow us to cooperate despite only minor overlaps in interest. Via Positiva sells but is open to supernatural, pseudoscientific, and pseudo rational content (falsehoods) and detriments to a people because narrative are cheap, and easily loaded framed and suggested and obscured. And we are vulnerable to suggestion by the narrative because if we were NOT vulnerable to it, the act of communication which requires suggestion via continuous disambiguation would not be possible. There is NO TRUTH. There exist a market wherein we compete between via positiva imagination and opportunity and via negativa limits and constraints. All we can attempt is truthfulness through competition. I you cannot understand this principle the you understandn othing of testimonialism(via competition), vs falsificationism(via negativa) vs justificationism (via positiva). If peterson had not come out against controlled speech, then he would still be unknown and irrelevant. His book was irrelevant. Haidts was far more influential and haidt’s research far better and more empirical. There are hundreds of people who have written and spoken of similar things, but few of them (a) can afford to come forward (b) started out as libertarian activists so that they speak in the frame of reciprocity vs duty or consensus, (c) have a platform(opportunity) and funding that he has. (d) and he has higher disagreeableness than others (hence his appeal to those of us more scientific than agreeable). I have to defend myself from this kind of bullshit. But he is another example of offering explanation and confirmation bias, but not providing a solution other than moral confidence. If you want a spectrum, today it’s Taleb (risk), doolittle (law), haidt (politics), forgot his name (education, and Peterson (religion, myth, propaganda). In a market we specialize. Simpletons want a single rule to follow. The mind wants a single rule to follow, We all want consensus. Christianity and Democracy are errors of monopoly and consensus. Markets in everything. Via positiva for children, general rules for adult, and laws for the wise. Opportunity, action, and limits. Leraning, acting, and limiting. The intergenerational transfer of AGENCY.