Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • 3) I can’t do much in tweets, but it’s just the process of mentally disciplining

    3) I can’t do much in tweets, but it’s just the process of mentally disciplining yourself so that animal impulses with which we were born are rationally reacted to rather than impulsively reacted to, and then actions and reactions taken and made according to our virtues (goals).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 12:39:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1013764001073958913

    Reply addressees: @NothingTheGreat

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1013631331065122821

    IN REPLY TO:

    @NothingTheGreat

    @curtdoolittle This sketches out your thoughts on it, and it’s good, but I was wondering if you could also give a concise definition of ‘mindfulness’, as you are using the term in posts such as this?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1013631331065122821

  • 1) Mindfulness as I use it, in the stoic tradition, refers to mental fitness: ac

    1) Mindfulness as I use it, in the stoic tradition, refers to mental fitness: acquiring virtues (quality human goods) that improve us as social creatures, rather than impulsive goods, or things (cheap animal goods). Insulation from emotional bads: impulse, envy, fear.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 12:31:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1013762142712057858

    Reply addressees: @NothingTheGreat

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1013631331065122821

    IN REPLY TO:

    @NothingTheGreat

    @curtdoolittle This sketches out your thoughts on it, and it’s good, but I was wondering if you could also give a concise definition of ‘mindfulness’, as you are using the term in posts such as this?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1013631331065122821

  • 1) Mindfulness as I use it, in the stoic tradition, refers to mental fitness: ac

    1) Mindfulness as I use it, in the stoic tradition, refers to mental fitness: acquiring virtues (quality human goods) that improve us as social creatures, rather than impulsive goods, or things (cheap animal goods): Insulation from emotional bads: impulse, envy, fear.

    2) We are subject to an ever increasing stream of opportunities. And unlike those of the past, where many conditions could cause us stress of deprivation, today’s opportunities cause us stress of choice. So we solve both problems past and present by self authoring virtues….

    3) … I can’t do much in tweets, but it’s just the process of mentally disciplining yourself so that animal impulses with which we were born are rationally reacted to rather than impulsively reacted to, and then actions and reactions taken and made according to our virtues (goals).

    4) … Mental discipline can be created by any number of methods: prayer, meditation, ritual, sport, but other than self-authoring, each has tragic consequences. The virtue of stoic discipline is that it asks us to act to obtain our goals, and to be free of manipulation by others, and manipulation by our animal impulses, such that we divert the least effort to that which is not relevant to achieving our goals.

    5) … And stoic discipline is superior to others paritcularly because it provides us with defense against abrahamism in all its forms.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 08:58:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    MORE ON NON-HETERO BEHAVIOR IN THE COMMONS AS A MATTER OF LAW

    There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter.

    In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons.

    That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction.

    As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration.

    As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market.

    Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-30 21:04:36 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. I mean, if you’re articulate, conniving, but

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    I mean, if you’re articulate, conniving, but not creative, and unburdened with moral intuition, then it’s deterministic that you will specialize in parasitism by false promise or moral hazard – and it’s rather obvious that you would develop a group evolutionary strategy that takes advantage of your ability to create exception. Take your average woman’s intuition and means of competition by gossip and undue compliment, remove all fear, and that’s what you get. Reversal of dimorphism seems to have been an effective strategy.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-29 21:06:58 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. AGENCY (FULL DEFINITION IN CONTEXT) —“Wha

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    AGENCY (FULL DEFINITION IN CONTEXT)

    —“What is the definition of “agency” as the term is used here?”— Daniel Roland

    —“The capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices subject to personal or external limitations. By contrast, *structure* refers to those factors that determine or limit an individual and his or her decisions, such as gender, social class, ethnicity, religion, customs, education, economic institutions, government, propaganda, ability, knowledge, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. Meaning that one’s agency is determined by the combination of beneficial institutions, abilities, and knowledge and inhibiting institutions, abilities, and knowledge”—
    As an example, God would have perfect agency, because would have perfect knowledge(omniscience), perfect reason, perfect emotions, perfect mindfulness, perfect ability to act (omnipotence), unlimited resources, and no competition, no need to cooperate, and therefore no need for conventions, laws, institutions, or infrastructure.

    As humans we have imperfect knowledge, imperfect reason, imperfect mindfulness, imperfect emotions, limited range of actions, limited resources, and we live in a world where we must compete, must cooperate to compete, and to do so require conventions, laws, institutions, and infrastructure.

    So, Agency consists of the degree to which one approaches perfect ability to act, when not limited by knowledge, reason, emotions, mindfulness, range of action, available instrumentation, available resources, competition, cooperation, conventions, laws, institutions and infrastructure.

    Given we can never have unlimited knowledge, unlimited resources, and we have limited ability to be free of competition, need for cooperation, conventions, laws, institutions, and infrastructure, we can seek largely to improve our knowledge, reason, mindfulness, and assets so that we maximize our agency within the availble limits.

    CONVERSELY (VIA NEGATIVA)
    Remove sources of lack of fitness, lack of character (virtue), lack of resources, sources of normative and institutional resistance, sources of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit – all the impediments to agency – and agency will result. Then selecting a philosophy – a means of decidability – by which one can obtain one’s ends, and an aesthetic that values one’s passions in accordance with that philosophy.

    AGENCY = POTENTIAL ENERGY
    by Simon Ström

    Agency = potential energy (PE)
    Force = applied energy (F)
    Event = Impulse (Imp), [force vector + temporal dimension]
    Consequence = displacement vector (s)
    Action = work (W)
    Externalities = Waste heat (h)
    W = F * s

    SPEAKING IN OPERATIONAL GRAMMAR IS A TEST OF AGENCY
    It is very hard to migrate
    FROM thinking in terms of:
    1 – meaning or experience to your self
    2 – empathy for or meaning to others
    3 – empathy with others intentions
    INTO
    4 – nothing but objective statements of incentives, actors, actions, and consequences.

    Note:
    The degree with which you can do this kind of speech is a direct measure of your own agency.

    SOVEREIGNTY = perfect (exceptionless) reciprocity by perfect (exceptionless) reciprocal insurance, in numbers sufficient to deny violations of reciprocity to all possible (exeptionless) extant numbers.

    PERFECT RECIPROCITY = limiting one’s actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of property – in – toto, limited to productive externalities.

    PROPERTY IN TOTO = That in which one has expended any resource with intent to obtain an interest, without imposing a cost on that which another has expended a resource with the intent to obtain an interest. Synonym: ‘demonstrated property’

    INTEREST: = ergo, leaving only homesteading, transformation, and exchange, as means of obtaining an interest. Synonym: monopoly share (a possession), proportional share (citizenship in a commons), proportional share (private in a common contract), demonstrated share ( a denial of opportunity( such as norms and traditions)

    RESOURCE : life, body, effort, time, attention, kin, material possession, material interest (share), organizational interest, normative interest, institutional interest, informational interest. Synonym: “capital”.

    YIELDS:
    Possession(insured by self defense) > consensual property (insured by reciprocity) > normative property(insured by normative enforcement) > property right (insured by third party enforcement) > natural right(ideal between government and citizens) or human right(ideal between governments). Technically speaking,under rule of law, under natural judge-discovered common law, under perfect reciprocity (sovereignty), natural rights can be brought into existence.

    Under these conditions it is possible to create sovereignty in fact, liberty by permission, freedom by utility, and subsidy by preference.

    (Good luck getting that degree of precision out of parasitic libertines) 😉

    ARISTOCRACY: THE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION OF AGENCY
    Aristocracy: the production of Agency (peers) by the incremental suppression of parasitism, by the use of the common law, leaving no option for survival but market production: the civilization-wide industrialization of the domestication of the animal man, for fun and profit.

    WE ONLY ASK COOPERATION OF THOSE WITH AGENCY OR ITS PROMISE
    We don’t ask cooperation of beasts
    We don’t ask cooperation of domesticated animals.
    We don’t ask cooperation of pets
    We don’t ask cooperation of children
    We don’t ask cooperation of the incapable
    We don’t ask cooperation of those without agency.
    We ask little cooperation of those who request subsidy.
    We ask more cooperation of those who request freedom.
    We ask even more cooperation from those who request liberty.
    We desire the full cooperation of those who possess agency.
    We require and cannot avoid the full cooperation of those who desire sovereignty.

    The few rule the many, to transcend mankind.
    We can rule and transcend, or be ruled and fail to.
    We can possess sovereignty in fact, or something less by permission.
    But to possess sovereignty requires we possess agency.
    And to possess agency we must possess the ability, the knowledge, the fitness and will…
    … the will to fight, kill, slaughter, and destroy.

    There is no transcendence, no sovereignty, no agency for the weak, the cowardly, the timid, or the dim. And no liberty, nor freedom, nor subsidy for others if we fail.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-28 16:57:16 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. THERE IS NO “WE” There is no “WE”. There is u

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    THERE IS NO “WE”

    There is no “WE”. There is us and ours, and you and yours, and they and theirs, and cooperation with you or they, under your or their parasitism, is no longer preferable to separation, war, or even extermination. It is a purely empirical question.

    Cooperation is only valuable until it is not. Under certain conditions cooperation is profitable – when it is not parasitic. Under other conditions predation is preferable to parasitism. The only question I have is whether separation, enslavement, or destruction is preferable. That is a purely empirical question.

    The subject of morality is a condition of cooperation outside of cooperation all questions are amoral. Under parasitism only predation is rational. It is a purely empirical question.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-27 20:50:49 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. SINGLE MOTHERS DATA: I TRY, BUT SOMETIMES I D

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    SINGLE MOTHERS DATA: I TRY, BUT SOMETIMES I DON”T SUCCEED.

    —“Evidence seems to suggest that children with single mothers grow up to be a menace whereas children with single fathers grow up just fine.”—Alba Rising

    Um… that’s not the case.

    It’s that single mothers are at much higher risk of unstable environments and higher risk of insecure (guilty) mother’s psychology affecting children negatively than single fathers for the simple reason that single fathers are more likely to cohabitate and produce a healthier environment lacking guilt, instability, and insecurity.

    Or conversely, that single mothers try too hard to control and influence their children at the expense of fathers who are high maintenance but produce healthier children even by dedicating far less attention to them.

    The fact single mothers produce the majority of problem adults doesn’t equal that the majority of single mothers produce problem adults.

    In other words, TWO PARENTS ARE BETTER THAN ONE.

    I thought I got this across but apparently not…..

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-27 17:55:45 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. (ANSWER TO A “BAIT POST” – BTW: I BLOCKED THE

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (ANSWER TO A “BAIT POST” – BTW: I BLOCKED THE INDIVIDUAL WHO REQUESTED IT.)

    SOME RADICAL LEFTIST ASKED ME HOW PROPERTARIANISM WOULD JUDGE HITLER’S GERMANY’S RELOCATION POLICY

    It was a dishonest attempt to bait hate speech. I don’t do hate speech. Ever. I do Science and Natural Law.

    Here is the Answer:

    (a) That high trust is nearly exclusive to the germanic and Japanese peoples, and is their civilization’s competitive advantage.
    (b) That outside of scientific researchers (scientists) non kin shouldn’t cohabitate in the fist place, because it reduces trust, and creates those exact conditions of conflict. (The upper intellectual classes are more autistic and less dependent upon collective for information, and the lower classes the opposite).
    (c) That peoples that specialize in rent seeking and profiting from moral hazard in particular shouldn’t be hosted (any more than those dependent upon begging and thievery) because it leads to prosecution, persecution, and at times, extermination – as well as destroying trust and raising costs of policing the commons.
    (d) That peoples who practice separatism of any kind shouldn’t be tolerated by host societies for those same reasons.
    (e) That this process of separation, if pursued, should be legislated with a multi-year timeline, later prosecuted for non-compliance, and then subject to Hoppe’s “Forcible Removal”.
    (f) That the original relocation model, taken from the Soviet Relocations, had been successful there, and truthfully, throughout all human history.
    (g) That the combination of relocation (forcible removal) and a nearly impossible war was unmanageable. And that they could not fund both. Had they not been pressured by Russia into war, they would have succeeded.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-27 12:36:02 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. Jan 30, 2017 10:32pm NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGN

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    Jan 30, 2017 10:32pm

    NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGN MEN: DOMESTICATING ANIMAL MAN FOR PEERS AND PROFIT.

    An animal has no agency, only impulse; can enter no contracts, only seize conveniences; can resolve no disputes truthfully, only imagine excuses. It cannot be reasoned with, only bribed or punished. But with bribes and punishments it can be trained. And if training fails, abandoned to the wild, enslaved, imprisoned, or killed.

    We train the animal with property in toto, manners, ethics, morals, and law. We use peers, parents, teachers, sheriffs, police, judges, juries, soldiers, generals and kings.

    The animal can be trained from beast to slave, to serf, to dependent, to freeman, to civilian, to soldier, to aristocracy: human.

    The training requires sentience, awareness, consciousness, reason, knowledge, and agency.

    But each degree of training demands more of the animal, and many – most – cannot complete it, and transcend the animal.

    As such the world is full of a few humans and many domesticated animals of varying degree, and many, many beasts.

    Thankfully, like many domesticatable animals, these animals, once domesticated, can often be put to good use.

    And as such, the beast man, like all other domesticatable beasts, can be domesticated for profit.

    The domestication of man – that occupation we call rule – is the most profitable occupation of all, except for one:

    The success in breeding, and training humans.

    Because while animals are a commodity, producing the rare human is the most profitable industry of all.

    And if it fails, hunting the beast man that remain, is the greatest joy of all.

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-27 10:21:00 UTC