Curt Doolittle

Theme: Religion

  • ON THE FUTURE OF RELIGION BY HARARI THOUGHTS: 1) Any entity with which we can co

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6BK5Q_DbloTHOUGHTS ON THE FUTURE OF RELIGION BY HARARI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6BK5Q_Dblo

    THOUGHTS:

    1) Any entity with which we can cooperate need only observe the principle of non-imposition of costs either directly or through externality, which we institutionalize as property rights. Whether mechanical or biological, natural life or artificial life, cooperation is dependent upon this single principle.

    2) It is certainly true that by analogy the human organism consists of processes that calculate the perpetuation of the organism. that does not influence the principle of cooperation – non-imposition – whatsoever.

    3) Because both evolutionary necessity and the desire to cooperate rather then engage in murder, harm, theft, fraud, free riding, conspiracy, enslavement, conversion, invasion, and war – provide *decidability* by the the same principle of cooperation: the non-imposition of cost.

    4) since we compete and there is no evidence that we will not, then any technological innovation will merely increase the rate of our competition with one another for status, and continue to increase our differences.

    5) The reason liberalism, consumerism, and technological innovation have such influence over our lives is our wealth generated under consumer capitalism. But in a world where few of us are productive, most of us live in dependence, and a minority (Pareto’s 20%) produce and organize production, that means a great number of people must seek status (mating) by means of non-productive signaling. The uncomfortable option of large numbers of young men is one the world has encountered many times in the past, and is the source of all revolutions.

    6) There is very little reason to develop a computer that thinks like us, because we are in a constant battle between pre-property individuals who acquire regardless of cost to others, and cooperating members of a group who do not. And the need to preserve ‘cheaters’ in order to preserve both the moral intuition to cooperate and the moral intuition to punish cheaters. If we can empathize with cheaters we can then cheat. To identify cheaters we must be able to empathize with them. If we were to build a machine with the same method of thinking of man, then it would also, like HAL’s lie, know how to cheat. For this reason the most valuable computers are those that think only with acquisition, property, and voluntary exchange, and like title registries, cannot violate property.

    7) As far as we know, Patriarchy arose with property, when the value of male’s productivity allowed him to control female’s sex affection and reproduction . Females evolved as the property of bands of related males who preyed upon competing males to obtain their females, just as males humans prey(ed) upon competing male’s sheep, goat, cattle, and land. Females evolved gossip to rally and shame males into constraining alphas.

    8) Socialism and Communism are based upon PSEUDOSCIENCE, not rationality. Rationality is weaker than myth over multiple generations. All major religions are supported by rational argument. It is dependent upon superstitious mythology not pseudoscience. Religions function as a means of limiting the government (nobility), and limiting men and women in the society. (Harari misrepresents natural law for what I assume are cultural reasons of interpretation.) The basis of western civilization is natural law of necessity for peaceful cooperation. That is quite different from dependent upon natural order. Laws of Nature(pseudoscience) are different from Natural Law(science), just as Rule by Law(command) is different from Rule of Law(limits on lawmaking). These are precise and technical terms that are abused in the public discourse.

    9) Matriarchal societies constrain inheritance of property to the female line, but as far as we (I) know, they are always ruled by headmen.

    10) Harari tried but he carries his cultural bias by demonstrating asymmetric criticism and praise. But we all do and none of us can escape it. I am as biased by my anglo aristocratic heritage as Kant and Heidegger are by theirs, and Marx and Harari are by theirs. This is due in no small part to the challenge of eliminating dependence for meaning and decidability upon introspective judgement. Harari is advocating universalism of cosmopolitanism (the Jewish enlightenment) just as surely as every single German advocates the German enlightenment, americans advocate Jeffersonian Contractualism. And there are some of us trying desperately trying to transcend the failures of the anglo, french, german, and ashkenazi enlightenments – all of which are simply restatements of their local group evolutionary strategy in universalist terms, by merely secular restatement their mythos. Hence my emphasis on the only universal rule: not how can we cooperate best, but why should we cooperate at all, if predation is preferable? The fist question of ethics is “Why don’t I kill you and take your territory, women and things?” All other positions are deceptive attempts to reason by fraud. And that is just how it is. And that is what separates the west from the rest: we invented ‘truth’ by which we mean ‘scientific objective truth’, testimony regardless of how we feel about it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-01 06:12:00 UTC

  • “A secular state is just Virgin territory rather than a barrier to religious dom

    —“A secular state is just Virgin territory rather than a barrier to religious dominance.”— John McKenna

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 09:55:00 UTC

  • Feminine homogeneity requires religion and shaming. Masculine division of labor

    Feminine homogeneity requires religion and shaming. Masculine division of labor requires law and decide ability.

    Women raise children to fit in. Men raise men to perform functions and duties.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 09:08:00 UTC

  • A MUSLIM DEVOTEE’S ARGUMENT (Whats funny is that as I write this i’m berating an

    http://www.amazon.com/Omar-Khayyam-Poet-Rebel-Astronomer/dp/0750947152/EXPLAINING A MUSLIM DEVOTEE’S ARGUMENT

    (Whats funny is that as I write this i’m berating an ignorant american standing in front of me for a similar error. irony is everywhere.)

    I’m going to be generous and suggest the reviewer does not understand what he speaks.

    In the western tradition we have three languages: (a) the anglo, roman and greek empirical and historical, (b) the german and french ‘continental’ and rational, and the (c) Catholic Theological under Natural Law.

    The Islamic tradition has not gone through either the continental or empirical revolutions, and remains an inspirational and mythical construction. Inspiration and myth are indeed a means of communicating ideas. The continental tries to bridge between the inspirational and authoritarian methods of the theological, and the factual and empirical methods of the empirical.

    MANY of the same ideas can be COMMUNICATED and TAUGHT by inspirational/mythological, continental/rational and analytic/scientific means of communication. But it is much harder to error, bias, wish, and deceive in the analytic tradition than in the rational and mythological.

    So just as the young need myth and virtue ethics, the mature need history and deontological(rule) ethics, and the wise need science and teleological (outcome) ethics, civilizations require virtues for the ignorant and laboring class, rules for the educated and managerial class, and science for brilliant and leadership classes.

    Because the virtuous man, the educated manager, and the brilliant leader influence different numbers of people. The man himself, the manager of men, and the leader of men, require greater precision in their knowledge because they must distill information from larger numbers of people, and distribute instruction to larger numbers of people.

    The author of this fine book is speaking in the empirical language of professors, scholars, and leaders of educated men. He is not speaking in the virtues of laborers. Islam is a language of ignorant men because islam has not evolved into a technological society. Christianity was the language of ignorant men before they evolved into a technological society.

    Virtues can be expressed in many languages: that which inspires, that which managers require, and that which leaders require. But the truth required of leaders cannot be expressed by mere inspiration.

    Islam like christianity, like judaism, like zoroastrianism that Muhammed immitated, is a language for the leadership and management ignorant people herding sheep and cattle.

    It worked. But it is not ‘true’ any more than icarus and daedalus are true. They merely teach broad general rules for life. They do not tell us how to transform the universe into a garden of eden.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 08:21:00 UTC

  • (worth repeating) Islam vs Christianity (via Curt) 1) hatred is required / hatre

    (worth repeating)

    Islam vs Christianity (via Curt)

    1) hatred is required / hatred is prohibited

    2) punishment is required / punishment is prohibited

    3) lies are permissible / lies are not permissible

    4) dual ethics (us and them) / universal ethics (misguided children)

    5) respect a given / respect earned by actions.

    6) knowledge is fixed / knowledge evolves

    7) intolerance is required / intolerance is prohibited

    8) inbreeding is promoted / inbreeding is prohibited

    9) produces low trust societies / produces high trust societies

    10) produces ignorance and poverty / produces knowledge and prosperity

    A religion is what is practiced not what is preached.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 11:31:00 UTC

  • MONOPOLY THINKING IS ENDEMIC IN DEMOCRACY AND MONOTHEISM, BUT NOT IN POLYTHEISM

    MONOPOLY THINKING IS ENDEMIC IN DEMOCRACY AND MONOTHEISM, BUT NOT IN POLYTHEISM AND PROPERTARIANISM

    OMG you made me ‘get it’. Thank you. Awesome.

    I see class theory as a set of elites in each of four disciplines of only three of which produce political coercion:

    1) Violence(male conservative)/Law,

    2) Gossip(female progressive)/Speech

    3) Remuneration (male)/Trade,

    4) Transformation(male and female)/Production-Craftsmanship.

    With Transformation not producing elites other than scientists (who are weak influencers). And with some groups succeeding in combining more than one means of coercion in the same group of elites. (Priest/Kings for example).

    I see humans a negotiators for their part of the spectrum of the reproductive division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy.

    1) Female consumption, short term (progressive)

    2) Male biased production, medium term (libertarian)

    3) Male accumulation, long term (conservative)

    And that through voluntary exchange we ‘calculate’ the optimum for the group, despite the fact that none of us senses the entire spectrum sufficiently to make a general judgement.

    I see the creative, productive, and ‘true’ processes as merely different points on the timeline of knowledge development:

    Knowledge Evolution | Production | Norm Evolution

    0) Inspiring (sensing and perceiving) | (feeling)

    1) Hypothesis |(free association) | (idea)

    2) Theorizing | (experimentation) | (trial and error)

    3) Law | (production) | (habit)

    4) “True” | (truth statement) | (norm)

    So I don’t interpret a hierarchy of these different perspectives, but excellences in all three, each of which advocates for his temporal constituency.

    So my understanding is not one of ‘one-ness’, ‘or penultimate man’, or ‘hierarchy’, but that each of us supplies specialization in some domain. And that as needs emerge and opportunities emerge, we make use of the elites in that period with the ability to best lead us into exploiting it.

    In other words, I merely describe what is, not what I think should be. I don’t try to say that we should do X, only that if we want to evolve that we must NOT do things that prevent us from doing so.

    There is no recipe for free association (creativity).

    There are recipes for testing your hypotheses, such that we warranty that they are free of externality.

    Thanks

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 11:22:00 UTC

  • CHURCH SERVICES? What if your ‘church’, which provided feast and ritual, also pr

    CHURCH SERVICES?

    What if your ‘church’, which provided feast and ritual, also provided services including education, banking, insurance, and a militia? The market serves to provision those functions, but why should they operate for profit? Why is market individualism more advantageous than collective bargaining?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 04:21:00 UTC

  • THE CROSS .. ……………………THOSE WHO FIGHT ………………………

    ………………………..THE CROSS

    ..

    ……………………THOSE WHO FIGHT

    …………………………….Violence

    ……………………….Organize Property

    …………………………………..|

    …………………………………..|

    THOSE WHO SPEAK —|— THOSE WHO TRADE

    …..Organize Norms…………….Organize Production

    ……….Gossip………………………….Remuneration

    …………………………………..|

    …………………………………..|

    …………………THOSE WHO PRODUCE

    …………………..Labor and Consumption

    …………………………………..|

    …………………………………..|

    …………………..THOSE WHO CARE

    …………………………Reproduction

    ……………………Nurture and Hospital

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-27 05:34:00 UTC

  • THE NEEDS OF THE SPIRITUALLY WEAK (answering criticisms) I agree with JOHNDOE on

    THE NEEDS OF THE SPIRITUALLY WEAK

    (answering criticisms)

    I agree with JOHNDOE on pretty much everything he says here, including his criticisms of me. (And honestly, sometimes I think he understands my work better than I do.) Unfortunately, I am writing philosophy as a scientist in order to construct *law* necessary to preserve liberty, by ending pseudoscience, loading, framing, conflating and overloading that have been used to destroy rule of law, and aristocratic egalitarian law during the post-religious era.

    This approach, like law, and like science, is a NEGATIVE philosophy to prevent immorality, rather than a positive philosophy to inspire morality, given that inspiration may fail to compete with alternative forms of inspiration, but law does not inspire, it REQUIRES, demands, or forces behavior be limited to the legal. And in the case of propertarianism, legal is identical with moral.

    Now, just as in science I can use Metaphor to convey meaning, in literature I can use Metaphor to convey meaning. The question is not whether once I am using metaphor I can speak spiritually or to inspire. The question is whether I still speak MORALLY when I am speaking metaphorically. And what I have tried to show is that statements are reducible to objectively moral and objectively immoral propositions. And that metaphors produce intended and unintended results. And that unintended results may be moral or immoral.

    I seriously doubt that Icarus and Daedalus existed. However it is impossible to find immorality in this parable. But under the mythos’ of Democracy, Democratic secular humanism/Neo-puritanism, Socialism, Libertarianism, and NeoConservatism, immorality is contained in the entire corpus.

    Users of Mythical and historical figures from heroic do not make the same claims as gods, prophets, saints, philosophers, and pseudoscientists. They do not claim divine omniscience and authority, logical necessity or inscrutability by which to compel us to political action. They merely advise us how to be sovereign individuals. They seek to improve us as individual actors, not compel us into collective action. They seek to tell us truths by analogy. They do not seek to *trick us* as have religions, philosophers, and pseudoscientists.

    So if any metaphor, analogy, literary narrative, parable, seeks to trick us, I want to give people both the logical means of demonstrating so, and the legal means of punishing tricksters (liars). If it cannot be said truthfully, or by truthful analogy, then it cannot be said to be created by aristocracy: rule by the best. Because only the ignorant, weak, and incompetent would rely upon trickery. The strong need only speak the truth.

    And so as far as I know, that logic is inescapable, and I leave the need for verbalisms, trickery and shortcut reasoning to those who need such things. If I am right that our ancestors’ uniqueness was in the discovery of truth, then transcendence (evolution) of superiority is identical with the expansion of truth.

    This is a criticism of the other fellow here who claims I am not arguing as an aristocrat. And I disagree. As far as I know aristocracy and martial aristocracy is the most empirical of thought. And that inspiration is something we use to gain the support of the soldiery from the lower castes who are not able to wield truth necessary to obtain power by force, build a judiciary, a market, an economy, and to hold territory with the proceeds of having done so. This is paternalism’s function.

    So if you need parables to inspire you, my objective opinion is that you are weak. If you need a new church, then you need a proletarian priest, or a middle class philosopher, because the philosophy of the upper class is contract, law and testimony necessary for warriors to commit to battle plans. And war is intolerant of inspiration, and instead rewards courage and planning.

    So I view inspirational narratives as necessary pedagogical devices for the incremental improvement of those youth who seek to be able to some day wield truth. Hence why I advocate the matter of greece, rome, france, germany, england and scandinavia.

    And this argument as far as I know makes the criticisms hollow; and demonstrates that pretenders are not aristocrats but petulant youth with unmet ambitions, claiming achievement before having achieved. One does not make claims one is enlightened. One demonstrates achievement that proves he is. And in all cases truth is a competitive advantage. That’s why we all gathering information ‘intelligence’ gathering.

    Rule the weak.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-27 04:20:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “Curt,… I was wondering if you could make a post detailing your analysis

    Q&A: “Curt,… I was wondering if you could make a post detailing your analysis of what the Catholics brought over to America (good or bad), and/or thoughts about Catholicism in general. Thanks.”

    Will do. Take me a while tho.

    (this is to remind me)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-26 11:05:00 UTC