Curt Doolittle

Theme: Religion

  • An Agentist Approach to Divinity

    An Agentist Approach to Divinity https://ift.tt/2UfLOoc

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-31 01:21:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167608273714987013

  • An Agentist Approach to Divinity

    by Ferdinand Pizarro I lend a quasi-religious interpretation to information (order), but I tend to have a more agentist approach to my conception of “god” and/or divinity, which has the effect of providing sufficient interface for approximation of godliness. In other words, I don’t see information as god, but the net production of information (dissipation of entropy) as godliness. Thus those of us who can organize man & matter for the production of order (social, material, aesthetic) are “divine” so-to-speak. Tough subject. I always “feel” a sort of energy from within, a youthful spring, when I contemplate it, and I do so often. I found this in my notes from 2017, which you may clear up some of my hazy thinking by example:

    “The speakers of lies, subverters of truth, producers of confusion, the underminers of trust, the agents of chaos; the primordial enemies of human agency, excellence, beauty & the order that we, The Truthful Ones, impose on the Cosmos by incremental mastery over self, entropy & the human condition—the enemy for short.”

    This is essentially the only way I’ve found to speak about gods without lying.

  • An Agentist Approach to Divinity

    by Ferdinand Pizarro I lend a quasi-religious interpretation to information (order), but I tend to have a more agentist approach to my conception of “god” and/or divinity, which has the effect of providing sufficient interface for approximation of godliness. In other words, I don’t see information as god, but the net production of information (dissipation of entropy) as godliness. Thus those of us who can organize man & matter for the production of order (social, material, aesthetic) are “divine” so-to-speak. Tough subject. I always “feel” a sort of energy from within, a youthful spring, when I contemplate it, and I do so often. I found this in my notes from 2017, which you may clear up some of my hazy thinking by example:

    “The speakers of lies, subverters of truth, producers of confusion, the underminers of trust, the agents of chaos; the primordial enemies of human agency, excellence, beauty & the order that we, The Truthful Ones, impose on the Cosmos by incremental mastery over self, entropy & the human condition—the enemy for short.”

    This is essentially the only way I’ve found to speak about gods without lying.

  • I didn’t. I’m familiar with the long running debate over the criteria for being

    I didn’t. I’m familiar with the long running debate over the criteria for being named a philosopher vs author, essayist, commentarian, theologian vs charlatan, and between self help, wisdom lit, philosophy, logic, science, history and their conflation in theology

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 15:52:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167102800192593925

    Reply addressees: @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167101665813512192

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167101665813512192

  • So does that mean that because Aristotle used ‘first mover’ he was not a philoso

    So does that mean that because Aristotle used ‘first mover’ he was not a philosopher? Or that kant was trying to create secular version of theology? Or that Adams and Jefferson failed to solve the problem of return of undecidable matters to the legislature?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 15:41:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167100041586270209

    Reply addressees: @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167098386257866752

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167098386257866752

  • Theology is an attempt to conflate Myth, History, and Law in order to suppress t

    Theology is an attempt to conflate Myth, History, and Law in order to suppress truthful testimony. Most everything else (justification, moralizing, psychologizing, GSRRM) are just various sophisms of deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 15:39:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167099577796894725

    Reply addressees: @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167099217933996039

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz The principle difference between wisdom literatures: history, science, philosophy, wisdom lit (china, india), theology(semitia, europa), and mysticism is in the dimensions of permissible content and operations on it. Philosophy is a derivation of law, and Science of Testimony.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1167099217933996039

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz The principle difference between wisdom literatures: history, science, philosophy, wisdom lit (china, india), theology(semitia, europa), and mysticism is in the dimensions of permissible content and operations on it. Philosophy is a derivation of law, and Science of Testimony.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1167099217933996039

  • The principle difference between wisdom literatures: history, science, philosoph

    The principle difference between wisdom literatures: history, science, philosophy, wisdom lit (china, india), theology(semitia, europa), and mysticism is in the dimensions of permissible content and operations on it. Philosophy is a derivation of law, and Science of Testimony.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 15:38:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167099217933996039

    Reply addressees: @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167098504214437893

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz Syntax no. Grammar yes. Grammar meaning “Rules of continuous disambiguation limited to given constraints and the vocabulary likewise limited ot such given constraints.”
    In other words science, philosophy, theology (formal) vs opinion, justification, moralizing, psychologizing.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1167098504214437893

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz Syntax no. Grammar yes. Grammar meaning “Rules of continuous disambiguation limited to given constraints and the vocabulary likewise limited ot such given constraints.”
    In other words science, philosophy, theology (formal) vs opinion, justification, moralizing, psychologizing.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1167098504214437893

  • You just engaged in conflationa and sophism in the Abrahamic (GSRRM, Pilpul, Cri

    You just engaged in conflationa and sophism in the Abrahamic (GSRRM, Pilpul, Critique). And it’s unlikely that the others you mentioned know the difference. Peterson practices science but relies on suggestion using wisdom lit rather than operationalism. Borderline theology.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 15:22:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167095115346784258

    Reply addressees: @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167094277010284544

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz There is a demarcation between a philosopher and public intellectual, in the USE of that grammar of constant relations.
    My specialty is the disambiguation of science (operationalism), natural law, rational philosophy, justificationism, sophism, pseudoscience and supernaturalism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1167094277010284544

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz There is a demarcation between a philosopher and public intellectual, in the USE of that grammar of constant relations.
    My specialty is the disambiguation of science (operationalism), natural law, rational philosophy, justificationism, sophism, pseudoscience and supernaturalism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1167094277010284544

  • Abrahamic sophism (the world was created), Abrahamic Critique (straw manning), F

    Abrahamic sophism (the world was created), Abrahamic Critique (straw manning), Feminine GSRRM (Gossiping, Rallying, Ridiculing, Shamming,Moralizing) …. And No Argument Found.

    Now, restore the duel, libel, slander and what happens to these “non-arguments” by such schoolgirls?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 12:51:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167057300206641152

    Reply addressees: @TheAndrewMeyer @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167053312572702720

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167053312572702720

  • THE UNIVERSE IS GODLESS. THE MIND OF MAN IS NOT How many proposed proposed chris

    THE UNIVERSE IS GODLESS. THE MIND OF MAN IS NOT
    How many proposed proposed christian structures have there been? They’ve all been wrong, right? Instead, we see a largely dead, empty universe,… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=456170911646471&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-28 18:07:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166774431001251841