Curt Doolittle

Theme: Religion

  • PETERSON’S INSIGHT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN BRAIN STRUCTURE AND CHEMISTRY, THE

    PETERSON’S INSIGHT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN BRAIN STRUCTURE AND CHEMISTRY, THE MONOMYTH, AND THE MYTHS

    Peterson does a number of less than perfect things. But (a) he is restoring stoicism (self authoring), (b) he is restoring myth as wisdom literature using the universal Monomyth>Archetypes>Plots>Virtues system, (c) he is illustrating that this set of teaching virtues by myth maps to personality traits, and how those traits map to brain chemistry and structures.

    WHAT DOES “GETTING IT RIGHT” MEAN TO PETERSON? CORRESPONDENCE AND COHERENCE.

    Peterson uses the term “got it right” when picking insights from different thinkers, and he lauds those with deep insight and literary talent in expression of them. But when he says “got it right” he is referring to an insight that mirrors both the findings cognitive science and the expression of that cognitive science in the

    Furthermore the authority on the subject is Hicks. And It’s flawless. Which I’m happy to argue with anyone. From a purely technical standpoint, the argumentative structure originates in France as moral literature. Is reformed by Kant into rationalism and then the German Continental line. Is reformed by Marx (boaz, freud, cantor, lenin, trotsky, mises, rothbard, strauss) into pseudoscience. And was reformed by the french again into moral literature(Derrida,Foucault), then into pseudo-rationalism (philosophy without truth, Rorty etc.). But the technique has been the same whether in judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, feminism, postmodernism: Literary, pseudo-scientific, pseudo-rational.

    But never deflationary truth: What we call “Science”.

    While we did develop Darwin, Menger, Weber, Durkheim, Pareto, Poincare, Hilbert, Maxwell, Einstein, Spencer, and Nietzsche, and Hayek. Despite mises, brouwer in math and bridgman in physics, and various thinkers in Law, the Operational(Intuitionistic) revolution failed except in the physical sciences. We failed to continue the enlightenment into the social sciences and prevent the counter-enlightenemnts of the abrahamists (fundamentalists, marxists, feminists, postmodernists).

    We were not able to solve social science without cognitive science, genetics, the failures of the postwar attempt at spreading democracy, the failure of communism, socialism, and the great society programs. And the failure of social democracy in those civilizations without accumulated genetic (higher Iq) and cultural (high trust) assets.

    TESTING PETERSON AND HICKS

    My analytic technique requires that we examine the method of argument – whether it is stated via deflation, conflation, or fictionalism, whether it’s scientifically true or not, and then I determine the changes that occur in the state of all existentially possible forms of capital, and whether those changes were voluntary or not.

    So I circumvent ‘meaning’ entirely. In other words, I perform an accounting audit of the arguments. And his arguments hold. Sorry. Rock solid.

    PETERSON’S ONE TROUBLING TOLERANCE

    I would like to correct Peterson on simply one point: that our deception by marxism and postmodernism it is precisely abrahamic use of supernatural literature as in Judaism, christianity, and islam) to deceive and manufacture impediments to knowledge by method of conflation, overloading, suggestion, and ‘fictionalism’ (confusing the real and the ideal and the supernatural). And providing a means of producing an addiction response through ritual and prayer. All off which appear to cause catastrophic harm to all civilizations that adopt abrahamic deception by suggestion and addiction.

    So, by tolerating abrahamic myths – any myths reliant upon fictionalism (conflation of supernatural, ideal, real; myth and history, wisdom and law) – Peterson is leaving open the door for abrahamic art of lying without which judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, and postmodernism cannot survive.

    So, while I have a technical criticism of his work, as far as I know he’s largely on the right track, and his criticisms are correct.

    CLOSING: THE HARSH REALITY OF WESTERN SUCCESS: TRUTH, MARKETS(Meritocracy) AND EUGENICS/

    As far as I know, Peterson is reliant upon a combination of cognitive science and literary science, to use parables to inform for success and diagnose for unhappiness. And this is the traditional role of pagan myth. THe fact that parables make use of ‘external observer’ effect and convey every dimension of reality as do all stories, is something that should be of obviously anyone with experience in therapeutic psychology, knowledge of the function of therapeutic hallucinogens, the art of suggestion, or artificial intelligence.

    Why? We are suggestible in when fire gazing and listening to stories because of the effect of the suspension of disbelief. By visualization via narrative analogy we can experience in the first, second or third person, that which we might feel pain in analyzing within ourselves.

    It was only with abrahamism that the method of teaching and curing was weaponized against the underclasses in order to rally them against the aristocracy. It had a not insignificant role in the destruction of ancient civilization, and it is having a current highly significant role in destroying the modern civilization.

    Why? Man was not oppressed. Man was and remains a beast that was first self domesticated ingroup, then forcibly domesticated by more domesticated outgroups by the combination of agrarian discipline, harsh winters, upward redistribution of reproduction, constraint on reproduction, delayed reproduction, aggressive exposing, sacrificing, hanging, burning,plague , illness, starvation, and war.

    And the distribution of prosperity today is determined by the success or failure at that reduction of the scale of the underclass that has not yet been sufficiently domesticated for autonomous, responsible, participation in modernity.

    Western man’s failing is the promotion of abrahamic underclass values via democracy and equality, rather than the origins and success of western civilization in truth, rule of law (non-discretionary rule. rule without rulers), Markets in everything – the consequence of which is incremental eugenics through upward redistribution of reproduction.

    And that is the difference between the honesty of the ancient world, and the ongoing deception of the modern.

    We are unequal. And our inequality is manageable, as long as we continue to shrink the size of the undomesticated lower classes until they are gone. After that we may find that our definition of lower classes may incrementally evolve. But at present it appears that there is a maximum human capacity around an average of 115-120, which means that we were close to optimum in the west before the industrial revolution. And that we have lost as much as a full standard deviation in average intelligence in less than 150 years.

    And if rates of immigration and reproduction continue, we will have reduced humanity to barbarism once again before the end of the century.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 10:14:00 UTC

  • by Daniel Gurpide By the way, I am not reproaching Christianity for defending th

    by Daniel Gurpide

    By the way, I am not reproaching Christianity for defending the weak who are unjustly oppressed. I reproach Christianity for exalting weakness and viewing it as a sign of election and title of glory. I reproach Christianity for not helping the weak become strong.

    And I’m not arguing against the principle of equality per se, but the obsession of a doctrine that pursues the progressive equalisation of life, which in a world that is complex and diverse, and necessarily generating inequalities, can only end up in the gradual loss of energy: entropy.

    In a way, being Westerners we cannot be but Christian (some sort of). I choose the Christian valorisation of truth as something worth dying for – a step beyond the Socratic stance – as the positive aspect of the Christian West, and this is what makes me tell you that traditional Christianity is just an exercise in LARPing.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 18:32:00 UTC

  • by Daniel Gurpide A particular animating force, the Jewish-Christian spirit, has

    by Daniel Gurpide

    A particular animating force, the Jewish-Christian spirit, has been travelling and ever moulding the outlook, the discourse, and values that today inform Western consciousness. The defining character of this spirit is egalitarianism. It has expressed an egalitarian will, an egalitarian mentality – instinctive at the beginning, but increasingly conscious of itself until, in our own times, it has become fully aware of its aspirations and final goals.

    Western civilisation is condemned because the egalitarian utopia that has inspired it for the last two thousand years is in contradiction with the demands of modern society. Enthralled by this utopia, European man can no longer assume control of the world’s destiny, or be creator of a new future.

    Ashamed of a past which over time has given it undisputed superiority, the egalitarian West now wants the ‘end of history. ‘ It desires a return to the static stage of mammalian happiness: to an Edenic pre-human past.

    Egalitarianism has passed through different phases: mythical, ideological, and synthetic. It entered history (Phase One) in the garments of the Christian myth – “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Galatians 3:28) – and, as with any other myth, without explaining itself in either its discourse or in its actions, sensing its internal dialectics still as unity and harmony.

    Then (Phase Two) the ‘contradictions’ began to be felt and rationalised: first on a religious level, when the theologies of the Reformation and Counter- Reformation became ‘ideologies’ and the dialectical contraries took social and political shape – becoming ‘parties’. In this second phase, egalitarian consciousness becomes deeper, re-conceiving the idea of ‘equality’ of souls before God’ as ‘equality of men as citizens before their institutions ‘. This has come to be called ‘the revolutionary era’, since its manifestations were sometimes, though not always, violent. Liberalism – in its Anglo-Saxon and French modalities – started here.

    Goethe was wont to say that ideas, taken to their ultimate consequences, become absurd. Egalitarianism was indeed pursued to its ultimate consequences: the aspiration and will of attaining ‘equality of men before Nature itself’. This Third Phase may be characterised as ‘theoretical’ since it claimed to merge – ‘rationally’ and ‘ecumenically’ in a superior synthesis – the ideologies that derived from the myth. It started in an embryonic manner with Hegelianism; then came a first political- manifestation: Marxism.

    In the synthetic phase in which we currently find ourselves, the dialectics of egalitarianism are felt as an obstacle to achieving a global ecumene. Hence the constant presence of terms like ‘internationalism,’ ‘cosmopolitism,’ and ‘multiculturalism’ – and the establishment of ‘political correctness ‘ as the only legitimate discourse.

    With hindsight, Marxism-Leninism may be considered a ‘deviation’ from the main current of the egalitarian tendency, since it tried to ‘force’ or ‘anticipate’ the natural evolution of egalitarianism towards a final synthesis. It was not until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the peaceful ending of the Cold War – when Communism became reabsorbed into the common egalitarian matrix (partly because the objectives pursued by Marxism in the Eastern bloc had already been attained in the West) that the final and true ‘recovered unity’ of the egalitarian tendency took shape.

    Its consecration may be observed today in the unanimous acceptance of the doctrine of human rights and its expansion through liberal-capitalistic or socialist-Third Worldist globalisation – a project of planetary homogenisation which seeks to progress till the conclusive exit of humankind from history.

    Christianity and its secular derivatives – the liberal, socialist, communist, or anarcho-communist ideologies – are successive manifestations of the same egalitarian principle. They appeared in sequence historically, but they remain present in one way or another – all of them tending with different degrees of awareness – to the same end. All of them contribute to the spiritual and material decadence of Europe, to the progressive degradation of European man,and the disaggregation of Western societies. This has given rise to the more or less conscious nihilism that today permeates our culture, and the creation of a gigantic ‘mass of slaves’ alienated and devoid of any purpose.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 17:50:00 UTC

  • YOU DON’T DEBATE AN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST PERSON, YOU PROSECUTE HIM. (and fur

    YOU DON’T DEBATE AN INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST PERSON, YOU PROSECUTE HIM.

    (and further criticisms of abrahamism)

    —“If I organized a debate between you and Jared Howe would you do it?”—

    Well, you know, I spent a whole day on the guy, and (a) he didn’t read anything much I posted, (b) he clearly didn’t understand it if he did, (c) I am not sure he understands himself what he’s saying (d) he resorted to simple chanting accusations without demonstrating how they applied to my argument, (e) he blocked me when it became increasingly difficult for him to not answer.

    Now add to that (f) that it is pretty hard to write and read analytic philosophy because it’s turgid, and it’s harder to speak it and listen to it. And add (g) the audience will much more easily be bored with long chains of reasoning.

    But you know, there are psychological reasons people favor kantian rationalism, just as there are reasons people favor theology. One of those reasons is preservation of cognitive investment. The other is that while science (what I do) doesn’t allow you to ignore any argument, rationalism (what jared does) allows you to ignore many arguments, and theology allows you to ignore any argument. Kant was trying to recreate theology in secular verse, and this was his reason: to resist the scientific revolution.

    So I think if you asked me to debate hoppe on it, then we would show something important to the community. I think if you asked me to debate david gordon or walter block maybe. Because then the audience could follow. But none of them will debate me. They know better. And they cannot afford defloration in public.

    So it’s not so much I wouldn’t do it, as I am not sure he’s capable of the argument, or intellectually honest enough to engage in it.

    So when you ask me to debate him, I would enter a debate, but I would end up being a prosecutor: “If everything you say can be explained with science but you cannot explain everything sciences says with what you say? Why do you employ such a system of thought? Why is it you fear science just as theologian fears science?” The answer is because, kant reformed abrahamic lying from supernatural to ideal. Just as marx,boaz,freud reformed abrahamic lying from the ideal to the pseudoscientific. Just as the french(rousseau, Derrida) reformed pseudoscientific to outright fiction: reality by chanting.

    Mises applied the same pseudoscientific reasoning as marx did he just chose different half truths in order to reform marx when marx ended failing. Marx had stopped writing after he read the marginalists because his labor theory of value was now dead. Mises updated marx by inverting universal common property ignoring externalities to universal private property to the exclusion of common property ignoring externalities. He did so by abandoning the labor theory of value for the mengerian subjective value, and abandoning the universal underclass strategy in favor of universal middle class strategy. He replaced the pseudoscience of the labor theory of value, and ignoring the darwinian revolution with the pseudoscience of (a) casting science as justificationary(constructive) rather than critical (subtractive), (b) conflating axiomatic(necessary) mathematics with theoretic science (contingent). (c) conflating truth(science) and morality(volition). Which is precisely the technique used by the abrahamists: conflating myth with history, advice with command, wisdom with law, dysgenia with good.

    This does not mean marx and mises did not contribute to intellectual history. it just means like everything else Abrahamists do, it’s cherry-picking of half truths and half deceits, wrapped in exceptional mythological storytelling so that through overloading people can be ‘convinced’ by suggestion when they intuit that it’s reasonable. When in fact, the purpose of the argument structure is to bypass all reason. Suggestion is just ‘hacking’ the brain. And that is the purpose of Abrahamism: deceit.

    FWIW: You can tell everything about an individual or group or civilization by their definition of truth. And in particular, whether that truth employs the fictional(supernatural), the cognitive(analytic), the ideal(logical), the empirical(existential), or the operational(actionable), or all of the above.

    -Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 09:00:00 UTC

  • Law for the Aristocracy (responsible) Philosophy for the Nobility (privileged) S

    Law for the Aristocracy (responsible)

    Philosophy for the Nobility (privileged)

    Stoicism for the Citizenry (independent)

    Duty for the Military (labor)

    Religion for the Slaves. (contained)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 07:49:00 UTC

  • I think the argument is won. There is nothing good in christianity that was not

    I think the argument is won. There is nothing good in christianity that was not there prior. Christianity was developed like marxism/postmodernism as a resistance movement by the underclasses and women against the aristocratic classes (men). And while the ancients relied on deflationary truth and deflationary institutions, christianity like judaism (and then islam) relied on conflationary truth and conflationary institutions. Where the ancients relied on truth, technology, law, the abrahamists relied on deception, superstition, and scriptural authority.

    The matter is done. Christianity is done. Our natural religion was mythical-historical, nature-venerating, and stoic ritual in competition with epicurean experience.

    And that is what we have seen since the dawn of the enligthenment: the continuous progress of science by a minority and the continuous resistance by the underclasses against it.

    True is true.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 21:41:00 UTC

  • THE GERMANIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY – AND THE FUTURE OF OUR CIVIL RELIGION (must r

    THE GERMANIZATION OF CHRISTIANITY – AND THE FUTURE OF OUR CIVIL RELIGION

    (must read!)

    by Daniel Gurpide

    Catholic Christianity, in both Northern and Southern Europe, turned during medieval times into a different syncretic religion as a result of encountering Greco -Roman and Celto -Germanic culture. The pagan component of this religion, though usually unacknowledged, remained strong for a long time and it is this syncretic religion that people think of when they speak of ‘traditional Christianity’.

    However, the secularisation of the Christian West prevents any return to a sort of sociological Christianity which could be the vehicle in which to transmit a message of protest against modernity.

    The ‘right’-understood in a counter-revolutionary sense- has ceased to exist and religious Christianity no longer plays the role of a social-religious pillar or an ideal projection of a mythical -communitarian residue which could keep the different fragments of the egalitarian ecumene together. That role is played today by the religion of human rights and political correctness.

    The Christian churches themselves become fully aware of the situation and no longer identify themselves -if they ever did -with the destiny and culture of Europe, but rather with their own projects and historical interests. They merely constitute a minority within the egalitarian matrix :a backward and folkloric variation on the same theme.

    Christendom -as a marker of the European continent and peoples -is, in many ways, a fleeting sideshow in the world-historical development of the Christian faith. Christianity’s future lies in the ‘global South’, where its message of ‘pauper as Pantocrator ‘ – and its veneration of the meek and downtrodden – will no doubt be well received. Pope Francis (Bergoglio) is not an anomaly.

    In Curt Doolittle’s Summer School several ‘solutions’ have been proved to be false, a waste of time and energy: Libertarianism, petty intra-European fratricidal Nationalism, National-Socialism/Hitlerism, and also (traditional) Christianity. What’s next?

    I believe the iconoclasm of this ‘via negativa’ is the proper way forward :first clear the terrain of rubble and then begin the construction on more solid foundations.

    Ave et Salve.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 20:28:00 UTC

  • by Daniel Gurpide Christianity was carried by a Jew, Saul of Tarsus, from the Le

    by Daniel Gurpide

    Christianity was carried by a Jew, Saul of Tarsus, from the Levant to the Greco -Roman world. Its doctrines found fertile soil among the populous slave class in Rome.

    Eventually, after playing a far from negligible role in the collapse of the Roman Empire, the revolutionary spirit which stood in opposition to all authority – and hierarchy – was firmly organised by the Church of Rome.

    Once in power, the Church readily compromised with pre-Christian values and social forms, and condemned as heretics those who demanded that it live by the values of the gospels.

    The seed of rebellion and protest is inherent to the Gospels. That is why the Catholic Church traditionally opposed the reading and interpretation of the Bible by the people.

    –“Of all books, from a historical point of view,the most perilous is,indisputably, the Bible, if the public peril is to be in any way considered.”–(Goethe)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 20:27:00 UTC

  • My god does not care if I am pious. In fact, he prefers I not be. He cares only

    My god does not care if I am pious. In fact, he prefers I not be. He cares only that I am not a coward.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 05:07:00 UTC

  • “Crowns are for the valiant, sceptres for the bold! Thrones and powers for might

    “Crowns are for the valiant, sceptres for the bold!

    Thrones and powers for mighty men who dare to take and hold!”

    “Nay!” said the Baron, kneeling in his hall,

    “But Iron — Cold Iron — is master of men all!

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 19:00:00 UTC