(FB 1543185008 Timestamp) I WILL EVENTUALLY OFFEND YOU Religion is “The Hard Problem Of Social Science”. It took me longer than any other problem in social science, science proper, grammars, and logic. But in the end, like all problems, it was a solvable problem. And it makes everyone – including the atheists, the marxist-postmodernist-feminists, the abrahamists, and the rest of the world religions unhappy. There are very few of us who are fit to practice The Law, because there are few of us for whom the Truth is emotionally and intellectually tolerable – those of us with agency can be produced easily enough, but there are few of us who possess the facility by accident of circumstance in combination with our natures. We all have cherished falsehoods and lies that we have invested in. The truth is undesirable or we would not require it. It is the ultimate test of character: Can You Face The Truth? If you cannot face the truth, but can be a moral man, then that is Fine. But you may not serve as a Judge of the Law, or Juror of its violation. If you both cannot face the truth, and you cannot be a moral man, then we those who are moral will challenge you under the law, and those of us who can face the truth shall prosecute and convict you under it. As members of cults we are always in conflict over the legal systems under them, since those legal systems are arbitrary means of advocating different group evolutionary strategies of cooperation – all of which, under religion, despite their early utility, evolved to be more hinderance than good. As member of the Love of Man, of our Peoples, In nation-states, producing commons suitable to our needs, we are not enemies but allies in a division of labor producing the transcendence of man. If there is a better religion than that I do not know what it is. But it is the one I am proposing. A religion of the love and transcendence of man into gods, not into the subjects of priests and politicians, investors and industrialists.
Theme: Science
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543185008 Timestamp) I WILL EVENTUALLY OFFEND YOU Religion is “The Hard Problem Of Social Science”. It took me longer than any other problem in social science, science proper, grammars, and logic. But in the end, like all problems, it was a solvable problem. And it makes everyone – including the atheists, the marxist-postmodernist-feminists, the abrahamists, and the rest of the world religions unhappy. There are very few of us who are fit to practice The Law, because there are few of us for whom the Truth is emotionally and intellectually tolerable – those of us with agency can be produced easily enough, but there are few of us who possess the facility by accident of circumstance in combination with our natures. We all have cherished falsehoods and lies that we have invested in. The truth is undesirable or we would not require it. It is the ultimate test of character: Can You Face The Truth? If you cannot face the truth, but can be a moral man, then that is Fine. But you may not serve as a Judge of the Law, or Juror of its violation. If you both cannot face the truth, and you cannot be a moral man, then we those who are moral will challenge you under the law, and those of us who can face the truth shall prosecute and convict you under it. As members of cults we are always in conflict over the legal systems under them, since those legal systems are arbitrary means of advocating different group evolutionary strategies of cooperation – all of which, under religion, despite their early utility, evolved to be more hinderance than good. As member of the Love of Man, of our Peoples, In nation-states, producing commons suitable to our needs, we are not enemies but allies in a division of labor producing the transcendence of man. If there is a better religion than that I do not know what it is. But it is the one I am proposing. A religion of the love and transcendence of man into gods, not into the subjects of priests and politicians, investors and industrialists.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543416288 Timestamp) THE NEXT SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION (worth repeating) This persistent ‘error’ in the soft (projected) ‘sciences’, is, as far as my work goes, the central problem of thought in the 21st century. We are still trying to overcome the monopoly authoritarianism of Boas, Marx, Feud, Adorno et all, Derrida et al, and the feminists et al that sought to take advantage of the democratic novelty to obtain power. And the 21st century, beginning within the next decade, will consist largely of the transformation of the soft sciences into hard sciences reflecting groups rather than individuals – because the ‘individualism'(ideal) movement has failed. We evolved as a division of perceptual, cognitive, negotiative, and advocative labor across the generations, among members of kin groups functioning as an intertemporal network of ‘calculation’ of choices. The reason people are unhappy is the attempt to create ‘complete’ individuals instead of ‘complete’ kin groups. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
(FB 1543416435 Timestamp) UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC PRAXEOLOGY: ECONOMIC INTUITIO
(FB 1543416435 Timestamp) UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC PRAXEOLOGY: ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543416288 Timestamp) THE NEXT SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION (worth repeating) This persistent ‘error’ in the soft (projected) ‘sciences’, is, as far as my work goes, the central problem of thought in the 21st century. We are still trying to overcome the monopoly authoritarianism of Boas, Marx, Feud, Adorno et all, Derrida et al, and the feminists et al that sought to take advantage of the democratic novelty to obtain power. And the 21st century, beginning within the next decade, will consist largely of the transformation of the soft sciences into hard sciences reflecting groups rather than individuals – because the ‘individualism'(ideal) movement has failed. We evolved as a division of perceptual, cognitive, negotiative, and advocative labor across the generations, among members of kin groups functioning as an intertemporal network of ‘calculation’ of choices. The reason people are unhappy is the attempt to create ‘complete’ individuals instead of ‘complete’ kin groups. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543514903 Timestamp) Religion is just law … in fictional form. DEFLATION: Literature, History, Philosophy, Economics, Law, Science, and Mathematics -vs- CONFLATION: Semitic Religion. There is nothing in the law that cannot be taught by deflationary means (truthfully) rather than conflationary means (untruthfully).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543603044 Timestamp) ARE HISTORIANS OR ECONOMISTS MORE RIGHT? Um…. Let me help you: OUTLIERS. Economists are better at explanation post hoc, and historians are better at prediction, for the simple reason that history consists of the analysis of outliers (opportunities in signal), and economics the analysis of regularities (opportunities in noise). At present it is painfully clear to me that we are both at the most fragile condition any empire has been in history, and we have a surplus of agitated external competitors, and a surplus of agitated internal males ready to seize the opportunity. If the economics profession measured ALL capital changes and incentives those changes cause, and demand for it’s reallocation, as well as rates of consumption and production, then the profession MIGHT come close to the predictive ability of historians. But as we have consistently seen, (which I have been measuring since 2002), the opinions of economists (confidence) vary inversely to the predictability of the conditions. So, it’s not an either or proposition. Bias Confirmation in History, Projection in Psychology and Sociology, and; Cherry Picking in Economics. Next time you hear an economist say ‘but we don’t try to measure that’, inform him that his position is no different from theologians saying ‘we don’t account for that’.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543603044 Timestamp) ARE HISTORIANS OR ECONOMISTS MORE RIGHT? Um…. Let me help you: OUTLIERS. Economists are better at explanation post hoc, and historians are better at prediction, for the simple reason that history consists of the analysis of outliers (opportunities in signal), and economics the analysis of regularities (opportunities in noise). At present it is painfully clear to me that we are both at the most fragile condition any empire has been in history, and we have a surplus of agitated external competitors, and a surplus of agitated internal males ready to seize the opportunity. If the economics profession measured ALL capital changes and incentives those changes cause, and demand for it’s reallocation, as well as rates of consumption and production, then the profession MIGHT come close to the predictive ability of historians. But as we have consistently seen, (which I have been measuring since 2002), the opinions of economists (confidence) vary inversely to the predictability of the conditions. So, it’s not an either or proposition. Bias Confirmation in History, Projection in Psychology and Sociology, and; Cherry Picking in Economics. Next time you hear an economist say ‘but we don’t try to measure that’, inform him that his position is no different from theologians saying ‘we don’t account for that’.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543918554 Timestamp) by Ahmed Reda The enlightenment â or rather â the continuous evolution of western man from blacksmith to aristotle, to hume, to darwin et all, is produced by the incremental suppression of comforting falsehoods that imprison us in lack of agency. -Doolittle *NEVER FORGET THAT Rousseau, Kant and the Continentals were the Abrahamist reaction against Hume’s resurrection of Greek reason.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543877808 Timestamp) —“Chinese scientist who claims gene-edited babies — goes missing.”— ie: gene edited babies, free of HIV, were fake news. (all chinese science is largely fake news. Low trust culture, low trust economy, low trust polity, produces low trust science.)