Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Getting to Your Personal Epiphany

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:21 AM

    —“I feel you are missing the archetypal experience description. I get that that could be included in testimonial but feel empirical science/lawful testimony and mystical testimony are two different functions.”—Bill Smith

    Try again. I can sense something there and I probably know how to answer it but I’m not sure.

    —“Scientific experience is summarized in scientific testimonial which leads in the direction of expressions of empirical natural law. … Mystical experience is expressed in poetry, the development of religious structures that send one down a destination-less path and manifestations of the ephemeral like the Runes. … I believe they are different things requiring different metrics and modes of expression and experience.”—Bill Smith

    Correct. The question is, must they be coherent compatible and commensurable even if they are expressed in different grammars: deflationary-scientific vs inflationary-poetic. And my answer is yes. There is no reason for conflict. And it is this conflict that undermines our civlization from within.

    —“If you’re saying what I think you’re saying I’m about to tear up due to the truth you’re conveying… as I’ve never known anyone else who did or even could communicate that fundamental lack intrinsic to our culture.

    That was a powerful experience.

    Actually I think you might have broken me. At least … I hope you did.”—Bill Smith

    Broken means bad? lol. What does that mean? I’m scared.

    —“Broken as in the change in conscious experience of reality due to a distinguishable event or experience but is dependent on previous works or studies.”—

    Ok. “a moment of sudden revelation or insight.” Revelation, Epiphany, Paradigm Shift. (Good. I don’t have to feel guilty all day now. lol -hugs.)

  • The Revolution in The Ancient World

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:37 AM The revolution in the ancient world was democritus’ atomism, socratic skepticism (failure), platonic idealism(failure), and the success of aristotelian reason, empiricism, proto-science, stoic and epicurean replacement of conflationary religion, and roman law and administration, creating markets for all peoples – but the semites (the equivalent of ghettos) couldn’t grasp that ‘uncontrolled vision’ and sought to restore controlled (feminine) monopoly and conflation using female methods of deceit, and the female method of undermining from within. The revolution in the modern world starts with aesthetics in italy and makes its way into the legal minds who apply it to science producing the anglo revolution (athens). The germans(spartans) reacted by doubling down on it and becoming the worlds best materialists, and the americans inherited both civilizations for a time when the french and russians instigated the third war of german containment. Edit

  • The Revolution in The Ancient World

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:37 AM The revolution in the ancient world was democritus’ atomism, socratic skepticism (failure), platonic idealism(failure), and the success of aristotelian reason, empiricism, proto-science, stoic and epicurean replacement of conflationary religion, and roman law and administration, creating markets for all peoples – but the semites (the equivalent of ghettos) couldn’t grasp that ‘uncontrolled vision’ and sought to restore controlled (feminine) monopoly and conflation using female methods of deceit, and the female method of undermining from within. The revolution in the modern world starts with aesthetics in italy and makes its way into the legal minds who apply it to science producing the anglo revolution (athens). The germans(spartans) reacted by doubling down on it and becoming the worlds best materialists, and the americans inherited both civilizations for a time when the french and russians instigated the third war of german containment. Edit

  • re: Jackson Crawford, Tyr vs. Odin as Chief God

    Feb 24, 2020, 4:29 PM In order to suppress controversy you’re overstating your case. You’re representing sources, because under the defensive protection of the scientific method, we don’t hypothesize without evidence. Meanwhile I think Dumezil and the rest of us are interested in the evolution of european natural religion over time. To claim we can’t use etymology which is about as close to genetic evidence that we come, is rather unscientific, and to claim we can’t apply the same method of analysis to mythology is also. And to claim the popularity of the farmer’s god over the ruling class’ god in a tripartite hierarchical society given the difference in those demographics isn’t scientific either. Every mythos we know of evolved like every political and legal technology and every narrative technology by rules similar to language. Every mythic tradition is subject to the same forensics. So you’re creating conflict where there isn’t any. It is very hard to argue that Odin didn’t rise to prominence some time between the IE expansion and first testimony (roman). That would mean that european natural religion had a deus ex machina moment and Odin came out of nowhere in contrast to the entire cross civilizational IE pantheon. In the context of all those european mythologies, Odin is a pretty clear rotation into prominence. And Odin is the ‘odd man out’ in european religion. Of the european iranic and indo-iranic branches, each group evolved deities to fulfill the needs of a survival narrative given geographic and cultural competition. Europeans gods are are interesting because conquering (and replacing) early neolithic farmers was easier than the more advanced civilizations of the indus and mesopotamian regions. They were under less adaptive pressure. Yet still we have Odin. Why? That’s the interesting question. How did he rotate into prominence and why? So to say Odin is the primary germanic god – well of course he is by the thirteenth century record. That doesn’t tell us anything interesting. It doesn’t provide explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us why and where he came from. What change or pressure or advantage caused the germanic branch of the european expansion to rotate a psychopomp into the primary god (all father) to replace sky father? What drove the germanic adaptation (rotation) of a psychopomp into the god of the aristocracy?

  • re: Jackson Crawford, Tyr vs. Odin as Chief God

    Feb 24, 2020, 4:29 PM In order to suppress controversy you’re overstating your case. You’re representing sources, because under the defensive protection of the scientific method, we don’t hypothesize without evidence. Meanwhile I think Dumezil and the rest of us are interested in the evolution of european natural religion over time. To claim we can’t use etymology which is about as close to genetic evidence that we come, is rather unscientific, and to claim we can’t apply the same method of analysis to mythology is also. And to claim the popularity of the farmer’s god over the ruling class’ god in a tripartite hierarchical society given the difference in those demographics isn’t scientific either. Every mythos we know of evolved like every political and legal technology and every narrative technology by rules similar to language. Every mythic tradition is subject to the same forensics. So you’re creating conflict where there isn’t any. It is very hard to argue that Odin didn’t rise to prominence some time between the IE expansion and first testimony (roman). That would mean that european natural religion had a deus ex machina moment and Odin came out of nowhere in contrast to the entire cross civilizational IE pantheon. In the context of all those european mythologies, Odin is a pretty clear rotation into prominence. And Odin is the ‘odd man out’ in european religion. Of the european iranic and indo-iranic branches, each group evolved deities to fulfill the needs of a survival narrative given geographic and cultural competition. Europeans gods are are interesting because conquering (and replacing) early neolithic farmers was easier than the more advanced civilizations of the indus and mesopotamian regions. They were under less adaptive pressure. Yet still we have Odin. Why? That’s the interesting question. How did he rotate into prominence and why? So to say Odin is the primary germanic god – well of course he is by the thirteenth century record. That doesn’t tell us anything interesting. It doesn’t provide explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us why and where he came from. What change or pressure or advantage caused the germanic branch of the european expansion to rotate a psychopomp into the primary god (all father) to replace sky father? What drove the germanic adaptation (rotation) of a psychopomp into the god of the aristocracy?

  • Yes P Is a Formal Algorithmic, Operational, Science – It Is the Most Complete S Ci Ence: Law – by Which All Others Are Judged

    Mar 27, 2020, 9:56 AM

    —“You are not a scientist. You are a story teller. Arranging information, data, statistics, iqs into a self-deceptive, bias confirming narrative. As are the majority of scientists generally. Empirical science is inferior. Lacking holism and art. I renounce it.”—Learned Dr. Kantbot, PhD

    SCIENCES:

    1. Formal(Logics: logic, mathematics, algorithmic, operational). 2. Physical (the laws of nature). 3. Psychological (cognitive science), and; 4. Social (Social science: economics, law, politics, group strategy). P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of thought: coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible). Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any present definition P-law is scientific. It is logical, empirical, operational, and under realism, naturalism, rational choice, and reciprocity. Human Faculties (physical process) > Epistemology > Grammar > Vocabulary > Speech > Due Diligence > including Ethics. Faculties:

    1. Sense, Integration by prediction 2. Space-Time Modeling prediction, 3. Auto Association prediction (intuition), Auto Evaluation (emotion), 4. Attention-Recursion, 5. Reason, Planning, Calculation, Computation, 6. Action-Release > Repeat.Epistemology: Observation > Free Association > Hypothesis (reason tested) > Theory (operationally tested), > Surviving Theory (market tested) > Limitation > Falsification > Repeat. In P we use a ‘grammar’ to refer to the Paradigm and Vocabulary, grammar, logic, and syntax of a paradigm. And when we use the term “the Grammars’ we mean the spectrum of those grammars. A Grammar: refers to the Paradigm (permissible dimensions of perception, cognition, and action), the Names, Operations, and Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, story organization) and the LOGIC (constant relations) that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness. Vocabulary: Deflation and disambiguation by competition, operationalization, and serialization, ex: Moral: Evil < Bad < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good > Righteous. or Truth: Tautological < Analytic < Idea < Testifiable < Honest < Untested. Speech: Deflation (constraint upon) ordinary language grammar, limited to a single point of view, absent the verb to be, using complete promissory sentences, describing a series of operations (human actions), resulting in testable transactions (sentence),and sets of transactions. Due Diligence: realism, naturalism, sensory, identity (categorical), internal (logical), operational (actions in time), external (empirical), rational (bounded rationality), reciprocal (moral – reciprocal rationality), limited, fully accounted, warranteed, restitutable. Ethics (Morality): Productive, Fully informed, Voluntary Transfer of Demonstrated Interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality, and warrantied, by due diligence against error bias and deceit, within the limits of restitution. No more sophistry. Philosophy is closed. Science has fully replaced it. P-law is complete. Including Metaphysics, Epistemology, Psychology, Ethics, Sociology, Economics, Politics, Law, Group Strategy, and Aesthetics.

  • Yes P Is a Formal Algorithmic, Operational, Science – It Is the Most Complete S Ci Ence: Law – by Which All Others Are Judged

    Mar 27, 2020, 9:56 AM

    —“You are not a scientist. You are a story teller. Arranging information, data, statistics, iqs into a self-deceptive, bias confirming narrative. As are the majority of scientists generally. Empirical science is inferior. Lacking holism and art. I renounce it.”—Learned Dr. Kantbot, PhD

    SCIENCES:

    1. Formal(Logics: logic, mathematics, algorithmic, operational). 2. Physical (the laws of nature). 3. Psychological (cognitive science), and; 4. Social (Social science: economics, law, politics, group strategy). P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of thought: coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible). Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any present definition P-law is scientific. It is logical, empirical, operational, and under realism, naturalism, rational choice, and reciprocity. Human Faculties (physical process) > Epistemology > Grammar > Vocabulary > Speech > Due Diligence > including Ethics. Faculties:

    1. Sense, Integration by prediction 2. Space-Time Modeling prediction, 3. Auto Association prediction (intuition), Auto Evaluation (emotion), 4. Attention-Recursion, 5. Reason, Planning, Calculation, Computation, 6. Action-Release > Repeat.Epistemology: Observation > Free Association > Hypothesis (reason tested) > Theory (operationally tested), > Surviving Theory (market tested) > Limitation > Falsification > Repeat. In P we use a ‘grammar’ to refer to the Paradigm and Vocabulary, grammar, logic, and syntax of a paradigm. And when we use the term “the Grammars’ we mean the spectrum of those grammars. A Grammar: refers to the Paradigm (permissible dimensions of perception, cognition, and action), the Names, Operations, and Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, story organization) and the LOGIC (constant relations) that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness. Vocabulary: Deflation and disambiguation by competition, operationalization, and serialization, ex: Moral: Evil < Bad < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good > Righteous. or Truth: Tautological < Analytic < Idea < Testifiable < Honest < Untested. Speech: Deflation (constraint upon) ordinary language grammar, limited to a single point of view, absent the verb to be, using complete promissory sentences, describing a series of operations (human actions), resulting in testable transactions (sentence),and sets of transactions. Due Diligence: realism, naturalism, sensory, identity (categorical), internal (logical), operational (actions in time), external (empirical), rational (bounded rationality), reciprocal (moral – reciprocal rationality), limited, fully accounted, warranteed, restitutable. Ethics (Morality): Productive, Fully informed, Voluntary Transfer of Demonstrated Interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality, and warrantied, by due diligence against error bias and deceit, within the limits of restitution. No more sophistry. Philosophy is closed. Science has fully replaced it. P-law is complete. Including Metaphysics, Epistemology, Psychology, Ethics, Sociology, Economics, Politics, Law, Group Strategy, and Aesthetics.

  • Categories of The Sciences

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:45 AM BTW: In “SCIENCES: 1. Formal(Logics: logic, mathematics, algorithmic, operational). 2. Physical (the laws of nature). 3. Psychological (cognitive science), and 4. Social (Social science: economics, law, politics, group strategy).” Psychology is either ignored (as a pseudoscience) or included as cognitive science in physical science. I separate formal, physical, individual, and social sciences.

  • Categories of The Sciences

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:45 AM BTW: In “SCIENCES: 1. Formal(Logics: logic, mathematics, algorithmic, operational). 2. Physical (the laws of nature). 3. Psychological (cognitive science), and 4. Social (Social science: economics, law, politics, group strategy).” Psychology is either ignored (as a pseudoscience) or included as cognitive science in physical science. I separate formal, physical, individual, and social sciences.

  • Freud vs Jung vs Cognitive Science

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:45 AM by Tim Abbott

    —“Tim Abbott : What’s your position on Freud vs Jung, vs Cog Sci?”—CD

    Freud’s main concepts of the mind were non-original, but innovations of prior Greek concepts. The state of human affairs from the Freudian vision are outright lies. I find more utility in Jung. Jungian concepts of an evolving mind and a shared reality that constantly revealing itself via symbols. Cognitive science is a focus on the material world and being able to overcome emotional defects of the mind in order to think in a more rational way once again. I believe in the duality of nature. Materialism and symbolism, and through symbolism the material world can be manipulated. It’s a work in progress. 😐 === (CD: Tim is our go-to guy for psychology)