Curt Doolittle

Theme: Religion

  • RELIGION AND REVOLUTION (very important post) Religion functions as a regulatory

    RELIGION AND REVOLUTION

    (very important post)

    Religion functions as a regulatory institution limiting culture. It is one thing to allow religious ‘ghettos’ for political utility, another to tolerate those ghettos for commercial utility, and it’s quite another to create a poly-logical cultural (normative) equivalent to the mono-logical legal system. In other words, it is no more logical(honest) to produce a poly logical legal order, than it is a poly logical ethical order, than it is to produce a poly logical aesthetic order. These are not matters of preference but of truth. And matters of truth are not positive assertions but negative prohibitions. By the possibility of prohibiting that which violates physical, natural, and informational laws, we create a market for goods, but we prohibit a market for bads.

    So the separation of church and state is incorrect. That separation is necessary not so that we may permit competing religions – not so whatsoever – but (a) to prevent the conflation of religion with law, and (b) to allow the evolution of religions increasingly compatible with informational, natural, and physical laws.

    The military, organized crimes(federal police), local crimes (local police), and sheriffs (community police) must be independent because they do not choose, they only ACT. The judiciary must be independent to prevent its conflation, misuse, and corruption as an organization that decides (chooses) not acts. The church (and I use that term very loosely to describe all forms of aesthetics) must be independent for the same reasons as the judiciary and the military – to prevent its conflation, misuse or corruption. These are regulatory bodies for (1) military:force, (2) judiciary:exchange, and (3) aesthetics:good commons.

    The academy must be independent for the same reasons as the military, judiciary, and church: to prevent its conflation, misuse, and corruption. However this limits the academy to the sciences (the true) and preserves ‘the good’ as work for the church. Ergo, the aesthetic (allegorical) disciplines then are the providence of the regulation of the church, not the research and training of the academy. The Academy may produce good as a byproduct of truth, but the church must limit the good.

    Our Laws of Nature: Physical Laws, Cooperative Laws(Natural Law), and Informational Laws (Testimonial Law) must then limit all of these disciplines.

    Our germanic ancestors unfortunately did not grasp the genius of the ethics of the germanic oath (responsibility for truth, life, property, and commons), and the utility of common over continental law which enforced this oath not only upon the citizens but on the very institutions of government and religion themselves. The germans feared anglo truth. The anglos were seduced by the commercial gains of cosmopolitan empire – as are all empires that fail.

    The national socialists did not understand what they had discovered: a post-mystical religion – one that we all desire, and (unfortunately) one that we need. They too practiced conflation. They had one piece of the institutional puzzle but not enough of it to prevent ‘bads’.

    We can create a new ‘church’ and make use of our established monuments. That church must fulfill its duty as a limiter of aesthetics, just as the military(force), and judiciary(cooperation), create limits.

    But we must not make the mistake that other civilizations have made when their primary institutions fail: conflation. The answer we seek to restore western civilization is found in the choice of: Sovereignty, and the consequential choice of Transcendence and the consequential necessity of Markets in Everything. And in the means of decidability under them: The Laws: Physical, Cooperative(Natural), and informational (testimonial). And in the specialized institutions that limit the three means of coercion: Military, Judiciary, Church. And the one institution that provides innovation: Science, Academy, School, and Gymnasium.

    The human mind seeks simple models. We call them under various terms: stereotypes, ideal types, and ideals. It’s the most simple form of comparison. We want one rule,and one institution. But this ‘want’ leads us into conflation, and conflation leads us into misuse, corruption, stagnation, and failure.

    In retrospect our ancestors practiced soveregnty and tripartism (estates of the realm), intuitively and habitually, rather than scientifically (operationally and analytically). When the economic shift provided by the end of the plagues, the evolution of the hanseatic civilization as a competitor to the mediterranean, and the scientific enlightenment, unfortunately the middle class seized power by overestimating the potential of the commercial order and the power of markets.

    The accumulated cultural capital did take a long time to spend down. But spend it down we have. And by spending it down we can claim one benefit: by analyzing our loss, we can understand our error. And having understood our error, we can repair it.

    Deconflate the conflations of the enlightenment. End the attempt to construct an institutional monopoly – the antithesis of our historical reasons for success. Restore markets in everything. Restore markets in everything by restoring a judiciary under natural law, and adding informational law to the responsibility of that judiciary. Restore the church by restoring its responsibilities, and chartering it with a new natural rather than supernatural mission. Restore the military to its pervasive position in society as the central method of emergency services of all kinds.

    How can this be done?

    – Moral Permission (we have it)

    – A set of demands (a more precise version of that which is stated above)

    – A plan of transition (a demand for a new constitution, the reformation of our institutions, and the purge of certain institutions).

    – A plan of ‘persuasion’ ( Promise violence against the status quo, then incrementally increase it, until those demands are either met- or we descend into civil war, and we impose them ourselves.)

    Why is it possible?

    – because no civilization in history other than perhaps the Late Roman or Late Ottoman has been as fragile as ours is today.

    Opportunity knocks.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 09:42:00 UTC

  • IVAN ILAKOVAC on the demarkation between moral literature and mythology. Ivan Il

    IVAN ILAKOVAC on the demarkation between moral literature and mythology.

    Ivan Ilakovac: —“I tend to place a division mark between moral literature and mythology in existence of characters. Particularity of their experience, at least for me, warranties that the writer is just trying to explore and present one of many possible variations of human experience, and then, value judgment that may or may not proceed from that experience are just particular to that experience or that character, precisely: that reproductive strategy and its biases. (I could work more on this division now that I have a clear spectrum.)”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 11:24:00 UTC

  • Law of Nature, Natural Law, Moral Literature, Mythology, Spirituality, & Dreams

    Law of Nature, Natural Law, Moral Literature, Mythology, Spirituality, & Dreams.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 10:38:00 UTC

  • I LOVE THE IDEA THAT MY ANCESTORS HELPED PAY FOR MONT ST MICHELLE —“Radulphus

    I LOVE THE IDEA THAT MY ANCESTORS HELPED PAY FOR MONT ST MICHELLE

    —“Radulphus de Dolieta, Testemonio: For forgiveness of misdeeds of himself and his predecessors and successors he grants in the time of William, King of England, to the Monks of St. Michael for the brotherhood and the prayers of St. Michael and the Monks, his servants, all the dues on his lands, etc. [Recorded in original charters in archives of La Manche, Abbey of Mont St. Michael for Benedictine monks in Diocese of Avranche, France, A.D. 1085-1087. ]”—-

    No idea what he did for this. But it happened AFTER he was supposed to be in England.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 14:03:00 UTC

  • THE LITERATURES acquisitionism(operationalism) -> … “selective” historical lit

    THE LITERATURES

    acquisitionism(operationalism) ->

    … “selective” historical literature ->

    … … aesthetic moral/philosophical literature ->

    … … … aesthetic religious/theological literature ->

    … … … … aesthetic occult/mythical literature ->

    … … … … … aesthetic dream state ‘stories’.

    I might be able to do the first three but the rest are beyond me. yet we require ALL of these literatures in concert in order to convey ideas to the entire body of people. Why? Because each of us relies on a different intuitionistic combination in order to empathize with the same idea.

    HOW DO WE DO THIS?

    I think it’s most useful if we correctly categorize each form of explanation. As far as I know as long as the ‘science’ holds (any statement is testable under acquisitionism (operationalism/science/truth) then the manner of its communication (and the inspiration provided by that form) is just a matter of ‘speaking in the language of the audience’.

    I can pretty much decompose any of the literatures if I work at it (and have someone explain their experiences/feelings to me). And if we can truth test it, then the method of communication holds.

    What one CANNOT do is perform DEDUCTIONS (argumetns) instead of EXPLANATIONS. In other words, ANY VIA-POSITIVA that survives VIA-NEGATIVA criticism is still ‘true’. But it’s not possible to ARGUE, only EXPLAIN by via-positiva.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 11:38:00 UTC

  • WHY REJECT AN OFFER OF DEBATE WITH A THEIST? —“You rejected his invitation to

    WHY REJECT AN OFFER OF DEBATE WITH A THEIST?

    —“You rejected his invitation to debate him on his podcast”—

    —“Yeah, what gives?”—

    —“please explain”—

    We can make excuses for justifying our desires by pursuit of, discovery of, choice of, and advocacy of, faith, or its equivalent in the supernatural, or the platonic, or the pseudorational, or the pseudoscientific. And we make those excuses in many ways.

    There are any number of people who I debate on a regular basis who acknowledge that they merely choose that article of faith in all its forms. I choose my faith in my god, and I choose to ‘believe it’ despite knowing with near certainty my self delusion, and the psychological device god functions to fulfill. But I never use this faith in interpersonal ARGUMENT (truth) I only use this faith in personal CHOICE (preference).

    There are those people who are unable to choose not to rely on either faith by choice, or introspection regardless of choice, because of biological (genetic constraints) – the most obvious being women’s various collectivist cognitive biases.

    There are those people who deny that a choice is possible, because they cannot conceive of decidability by other means.

    There are those people that engage in justification for that choice or their inability to choose otherwise, and do so by moral means.

    There are those people who engage in self and other deceit to defend that choice or their inability to choose otherwise, and do so by moral means.

    There are those who advocate self and other deceit to defend that choice or their inability to choose otherwise, and do so by immoral means.

    Jay makes use of:

    0-supernaturalism,

    1-platonism,

    2-pseudorationalism,

    but worst of all, he makes use of:

    3-cosmopolitan pseudoscience in the form of psychologizing,

    4-cosmopolitan propagandizing, in the form of ridicule, shaming, and rallying.

    5-the ad hom attack to obtain attention.

    and furthermore

    6-he preys upon those lacking the ability, knowledge, and experience to circumvent his deceits.

    7-he has highly (over) invested in the creation of a persona in order to obtain attention, and like all ‘priests’ attempts to capture enough of that attention to create an environment in which he can experience his deceptions as if they are natural rather than fictional phenomenon.

    Any debate depends upon the presumption that the other party can (a) understand your arguments if you can construct them well enough (b) participate honestly, (c) constrain one’s self to that which is categorical, reasonable, rational, and empirical – testable by the other party.

    I have no confidence that jay can (a) understand that he errs, nor can he understand testimonialism, (b) can conduct a debate honestly, (c) can constrain himself to the testable, and (d) refrain from his adopted cosmopolitan (marxist) techniques of ridicule, rallying, shaming, pseudoscience (psychologizing), and therefore (e) debate whether testimonialism is testifiable vs whether his ‘metaphysical dependencies’ are testifiable.

    Testimonialism and Propertarianism are not something I ask people to believe. It is a logical, operational, methodology for testable speech that empowers people to demonstrate whether they and others understand their arguments, and to construct alternative explanations from those arguments put forward, by means of strict construction. Propertarian statements are subjectively testable, they do not require ‘belief’ (faith).

    So, I see no value in the pretense of debate, since NO ACT OF DEBATE IS POSSIBLE between logical and nonsensical propositions.

    And honestly, as long as he and his followers do not trouble me too much, I don’t really have any interest other than the odd curiosity that there is a market for nonsense of all kinds.

    So that’s you’re answer. “It would be a waste of time.”

    –“It would not”–Tristann J. DM

    Then you would need to explain to me why not.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-10 18:55:00 UTC

  • THE MEANINGFUL THINKERS Plato ->(the evil) …………..-> (theologians) ……

    THE MEANINGFUL THINKERS

    Plato ->(the evil)

    …………..-> (theologians)

    …………………………………-> Kant

    …………………………………………….-> Continentals (post-theologians)

    …………………………………………………………………..-> Postmoderns

    ……….Aristotle -> (the good)

    ……………………-> (empiricists et al)

    ……………………-> Hume/Smith

    ………………………………………….-> Durkheim/Weber/Pareto

    …………………………………………………………………………………-> Hayek

    ……………………-> Machiavelli..-> (machiavellians)

    ……………………-> (scientists of all sorts)

    Seriously, in retrospect, you can eliminate everyone other than Aristotle/Machiavelli/Locke/Smith/Hume/Durkhiem/Weber/Pareto/Hayek in the study of man.

    (IMPORTANT)

    I am increasingly influenced by the Ying/Yang between those who generate opportunities (positives) and those who generate limits (negatives). And since all positives are hypothetical and only negatives testably true, it would make sense that over time, those who study limits would survive and those who envision opportunities decay with their times.

    This is probably one of the more useful insights in the study of the history of thought: positives are temporal and particular, and negatives are intertemporal and universal.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-02 10:20:00 UTC

  • The Term “Individualism” is a Slur. Sovereignty, not Individualism.

    Non-Conflation is the Result of the ‘Sentiment’ of Sovereignty. I realize this is hard to understand, but in the simplest example, most cultures conflate religion and law. Ours maintained the separation. We preserve separation and therefore competition everywhere. Because sovereignty is our founding principle – that which makes us westerners. All other virtues of western civlization derive from – are a consequence of – sovereignty. Our separation of church (weak) and state (strong) is just what we think of most frequently. Or our separation of powers. But these separations exist to preserve sovereignty. We merely justify them as good because we intuit the preservation of sovereignty as a good where most other cultures are incapable of producing institutions that can survive competition. The term ‘individualism’ is a slur.  ANOTHER LIE.

  • The Term “Individualism” is a Slur. Sovereignty, not Individualism.

    Non-Conflation is the Result of the ‘Sentiment’ of Sovereignty. I realize this is hard to understand, but in the simplest example, most cultures conflate religion and law. Ours maintained the separation. We preserve separation and therefore competition everywhere. Because sovereignty is our founding principle – that which makes us westerners. All other virtues of western civlization derive from – are a consequence of – sovereignty. Our separation of church (weak) and state (strong) is just what we think of most frequently. Or our separation of powers. But these separations exist to preserve sovereignty. We merely justify them as good because we intuit the preservation of sovereignty as a good where most other cultures are incapable of producing institutions that can survive competition. The term ‘individualism’ is a slur.  ANOTHER LIE.

  • I realize this is hard to understand, but in the simplest example, most cultures

    I realize this is hard to understand, but in the simplest example, most cultures conflate religion and law. Ours maintained the separation. We preserve separation and therefore competition everywhere. Because sovereignty is our founding principle -t hat which makes us westerners. All other virtues of western civlization derive from – are a consequence of – sovereignty. Our separation of church (weak) and state (strong) is just what we think of most frequently. Or our separation of powers. But these separations exist to preserve sovereignty. We merely justify them as good because we intuit the preservation of sovereignty as a good where most other cultures are incapable of producing institutions that can survive competition.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-28 14:37:00 UTC