Curt Doolittle

Theme: Religion

  • WHY DISCUSS LIES. THEY’RE JUST LIES. THREE WAVES OF LIES. (read it and weep) (a

    WHY DISCUSS LIES. THEY’RE JUST LIES. THREE WAVES OF LIES.

    (read it and weep) (a graduate education in philosophy in one lesson)

    Q&A: —“Curt Doolittle, is christian mysticism a functional or structural approach to things?”—

    Well, now that’s an interesting question.

    1) “Functional”, “Structural” and “Approach to Things” are problematic terms. If we clarify the terms – which is the purpose of analytic philosophy – then I am pretty sure that (as usual) the question will all but answer itself.

    2) The Grammar of Description: The subset of internal consistency: observer (narrator) consistency.

    There are at least three points of view that we can use do describe observations: (a) the experience of being subjected to stimuli, (b) the experience of acting to cause change in state, (c) the observer of the actor and/or the experiencer, (d) the description of the constituent parts as a series of operations.

    In other words, all description of observation that we can use for reconstruction of observation (communication) of relies upon a grammar, and that grammar includes the point of view.

    In general the most problematic use of this grammar originates in the ‘cost’ of consistency in construction of our descriptions. The verb to-be functions as an obscurant technique with which to conflate multiple points of view, (use bad grammar of description) thereby either alleviating the burden of logical consistency from the speaker, OR worse, through obscurantism, allowing the speaker to state a falsehood undetected by the audience.

    3) “Functional” methodology is more correctly stated as an attempt at descriptive consistency using the experiential observer’s point of view, and the behavior (incentives?) that these experiences produce.

    Since humans act according to their experiences, this is somewhat difficult to argue with.

    To convey mere ‘meaning’ any method can be used to serve the speaker’s interests.

    Certainly the experiential point of view requires the least knowledge, and relies upon mere introspection. But experiential description is also the most susceptible to error, bias, wishful thinking, deception, because it is the easiest means of suggestion. It is the easiest means of suggestion because it is the most subject to loading, framing, overloading, and it invokes our desire to empathize with the speaker, leading to easy abuse of our altruism. (Which is why people use it).

    Hence why the discipline of science speaks operationally: to best ostracize error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit, suggestion, and abuse of altruism.

    And hence why, in my work, I use amoral operational language to prevent error caused by experiential, intentional, and observational methods of description.

    To convey “truth”, meaning that we have done due diligence to launder error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit, loading, framing, and suggestion would require that we test that all four descriptive models of a process are consistent with one another, such that we convey no error, bias, wishful thinking, or deceit in our description.

    4) Structuralism, or more honestly stated “social constructivism”, suggests that people throw symbols around at one another, and that their reality is socially constructed.

    Now this may be true at some popular level, but it was the western tradition to teach grammar, rhetoric, logic, and philosophy for a very long time. And we can see from the disciplined use of grammar, rhetoric, logic, performative truth, the discipline of testimony, natural law, and physical law, that it is quite possible to learn to speak with the same discipline as any of the logics. We just have industrialized education mass consumption and no longer teach these skills.

    The structuralist movement was created by some of the greatest ‘liars’ of the past century, in what I would argue represents an attempt to impose false skepticism on the use of language, in an effort to circumvent the constraint that consistent grammar, rhetoric, logic, performative truth, the discipline of testimony, natural law, and physical law

    So just as the 19th century saw the first wave of pseudoscientific liars: Boaz (anthropology), Marx (economics and sociology), Freud (psychology), and Cantor(mathematical platonism), Mises (economics and philosophy) the 20th century saw the subsequent wave of philosophical liars, Michel Foucault, the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908 – ), the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan (1901 – 1981), the developmental psychologist Jean Piaget (1896 – 1980), the linguists Roman Jakobson (1896 – 1982) and Noam Chomsky (1928 – ), the literary critic Roland Barthes (1915 – 1980) and the Marxist theorists Louis Althusser (1918 – 1990) and Nicos Poulantzas (1936 – 1979).

    5) Christian mysticism makes use of analogy to invoke experience (the extension of kinship love through appeals to altruism and the pack response in exchange for self-generated status signals).

    It makes use of any and all methods to suit its purpose. Christian mysticism is at best an allegorical literary and rhetorical art for constructing myths parables and outright lies, for the purpose of creating experiences, that produce behaviors.

    Some of these behaviors are objectively beneficial (the extension of kinship love). And some of them are not (too many to list). But what the data suggests is that this method works, particularly on the young, the vulnerable, the hopeful, and those with lower intelligence, and even those with average intelligence and above average moral instincts (purity, sanctity, hierarchy).

    (But the church also has a long tradition of natural law as well.)

    6) Humans can cooperate, communicate, and understand ethical moral and political statements by a spectrum of tools. And with some confidence we can say that Ethics can be taught using a spectrum of methods, from the most primitive and requiring the LEAST knowledge, to the most sophisticated and requiring the MOST knowledge:

    a) Myth and Mysticism

    b) Virtue ethics and imitation.

    c) Rule ethics and adherence to law

    d) Outcome ethics and the practice of science.

    We can separate the promise of a narrative, from the truth content of it, from the behavior produced by it (ie: Islam’s nonsensical ‘religion of peace’ claims which fail all three tests.).

    I would say that the truth content of christian mysticism is higher than the truth content of Structuralism. I would say that the outcome of christian mysticism is objectively more beneficial than the outcome of structuralism. I would say that the intention of structuralists was fraud and deception (parasitism). I would say that christian mysticism is not as bad as structuralism or social constructivism – which are themselves an argumentative innovation on mysticism (deceit). I would say that as long as we have a method of laundering error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from any and all arguments, and that we can teach this method by grammar, rhetoric, logic, performative truth, testimonial skill, natural law and physical law, that we can counter every one of these falsehoods.

    CLOSING

    Christian mysticism consists of allegorical conveyance of meaning, using a mixture of truth and falsehood to try to produce high trust on one end, and dependency on the other.

    functionalism consists of an internally consistent and grammatically consistent method of argument, but it is insufficient in the scope of due diligence it includes to ensure it is not used as a vehicle for error,bias, wishful thinking, and deceit.

    Structuralism is a literary and narrative attempt to circumvent a demand for truth, testimony, natural law and physical law.

    Christianity (monotheism) was the first great lie to successfully infect the west.

    19th century pseudoscience as the second great lie to successfully infect the west.

    20th century verbal ‘new mysticism of language’ was the third great lie to successfully infect the west.

    None of these subjects merit discussion since christian supernatural mysticism, cosmopolitan pseudoscience, and cosmopolitan verbal mysticism, are nothing but the same technique applied in three different waves, in order to defeat the west’s central competitive strategy:

    The creation of competitive commons through the use of truth, testimony, natural law and physical law.

    In other words: correspondence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-03 17:44:00 UTC

  • Truth, Law of Information, Natural Law of Cooperation, Physical Law of the Universe

    (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls) [O]ur brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors. With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement. By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories. But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability. With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability. We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation: –From:– “What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.” –to:– 1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation 2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation? 3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation. 4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve). This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man. So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise. A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy. Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’. A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law. A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence: Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging. And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability. That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage. But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results. So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state. And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence. All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected. If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion. Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence. The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Truth, Law of Information, Natural Law of Cooperation, Physical Law of the Universe

    (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls) [O]ur brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors. With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement. By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories. But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability. With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability. We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation: –From:– “What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.” –to:– 1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation 2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation? 3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation. 4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve). This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man. So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise. A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy. Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’. A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law. A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence: Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging. And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability. That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage. But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results. So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state. And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence. All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected. If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion. Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence. The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • You want to name a true God. I want to kill false gods so that only true God rem

    You want to name a true God.

    I want to kill false gods so that only true God remains.

    That is the difference between devout Christianity and the Christianity of Testimonial Truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-02 08:34:00 UTC

  • TRUTH, NATURAL LAW, PHYSICAL LAW (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume

    TRUTH, NATURAL LAW, PHYSICAL LAW

    (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls)

    Our brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors.

    With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement.

    By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories.

    But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability.

    With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability.

    We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation:

    –From:–

    “What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.”

    –to:–

    1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation

    2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation?

    3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation.

    4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve).

    This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques

    Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man.

    So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise.

    A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy.

    Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do.

    A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information.

    A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’.

    A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law.

    A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence:

    Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging.

    And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability.

    That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage.

    But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results.

    So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether

    The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state.

    And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence,

    All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected.

    If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion.

    Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence.

    The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-02 04:48:00 UTC

  • What makes one a Christian is not what he believes but what he does not believe:

    What makes one a Christian is not what he believes but what he does not believe: other majority religions.

    What makes one a member of the right is that he does not believe in the moral claims of the left.

    NRX does not believe that democracy is possible.

    The alt right does not believe that reconciliation or compromise is possible.

    In my work I do not believe that anarchy is possible, that the institutions of the past are recoverable, or that consensus building is possible without escalation to insurrection.

    Everything positive one advocates or believes is a mere theory among bedfellows of disbelief.

    The particular dream we each have is irrelevant. It is that which we no longer believe is possible that forms these movements.

    Why?

    A lack of innovative solutions.

    People diversify and embrace the questionable for the simple reason that they have nothing positive to rally around.

    Hence why we work on substantive solutions while the extremists rail at the heavens.

    So this criticism while true does not matter because it criticizes the obvious: desperate claims given the absence of achieve able goals.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-26 14:02:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ann-coulter-god-raised-trump-save-us-1000-years-darkness

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-24 08:36:00 UTC

  • SIGN (Humor) “There is Hope. God Is Coming. If Any Of You Are Still Muslim, We C

    SIGN (Humor)

    “There is Hope. God Is Coming. If Any Of You Are Still Muslim, We Can Cure You.”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-24 05:31:00 UTC

  • The Third Principle of Freedom of Religion is accountability. That is, that all

    The Third Principle of Freedom of Religion is accountability. That is, that all members of any faith are responsible for the heresies within that faith. Ergo, if your faith has members that violate natural law, reciprocity, or accountability then, this religion is by definition not a right, and does not protect fundamental rights.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 13:58:00 UTC

  • The Second Principle of Freedom of Religion is Reciprocity. So if a religion vio

    The Second Principle of Freedom of Religion is Reciprocity. So if a religion violates the principle of reciprocity, then it cannot be claimed as a fundamental right, since reciprocity is a necessary fundamental right.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 13:56:00 UTC