Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • 4) Hicks’ argument, which you did not understand, is that POMO is an evolution o

    4) Hicks’ argument, which you did not understand, is that POMO is an evolution of the (Marxist) means by which to circumvent reciprocity (science, economics, and law) by claiming power (science/truth, law/power, economics/necessity) is sentimental and psychological (arbitrary).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:10:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055446588112470016

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • 2) Scientist: Truth (coherent, consistent, correspondent, rational reciprocal, l

    2) Scientist: Truth (coherent, consistent, correspondent, rational reciprocal, limited, and complete) is power independent. Either you are engaging in full reciprocity correspondent with reality or you are not.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 12:58:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055443586219675648

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • Untitled

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027716300178https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027716300178

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-24 21:00:00 UTC

  • THE NOT SO SECRET SECRET Shh…. “The Grammars” unites the disciplines by showin

    THE NOT SO SECRET SECRET

    Shh…. “The Grammars” unites the disciplines by showing how each is a means of calculating using additional dimensions.

    Testimonialism unites the sciences as showing how truth consists of due diligence in the dimensions addressed by the grammars of that discipline.

    Acquisitionism and Propertarianism unite (replaces) psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, law, and group strategy with a single grammar of calculation: social science.

    People will be fussing over this stuff for the next century or two… lol

    I get to giggle about it…. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-24 16:36:00 UTC

  • 800 YEARS OF HISTORY IN ONE LIST: Fourth Crusade(1200) > Aristotelian Restoratio

    800 YEARS OF HISTORY IN ONE LIST:

    Fourth Crusade(1200) > Aristotelian Restoration(1200-1500) > Literacy (1440)> Reformation (1517-1648) > Scientific Revolution 1543-1687) > French/German/Russian Enlightenment(Counter-Revolution)(1700-1800) > Industrial Revolution (1760-1840) > Darwinian Revolution (1850-1920) > Neo-Classicism, Romanticism, Pre-Raphelites thru Nietzsche (Pagan Restoration) (1750-1900) With WW1/2 and the Jewish Counter-Enlightenment (Marx /Freud /Boas /Cantor /Frankfurt /Mises /Rand /Rothbard > French second counter-enlightenment (postmodernists).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-23 18:54:00 UTC

  • A Hard Concept to Internalize: Via-Negativa Lying

    October 23rd, 2018 10:08 AM A HARD CONCEPT TO INTERNALIZE: VIA-NEGATIVA LYING [S]cience and Law are via-negativa disciplines. We know truth by eliminating what is false. We know legal, ethical, moral, and good, by eliminating what is irreciprocal, unethical, immoral, criminal, and bad. Science is the means by which we perform due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit – leaving only truth candidates remaining. So, when we say someone is LYING it does not require that they via-positiva relied upon intent. Instead, we require via-negativa, that we take involuntary responsibility for performing due diligence against spreading a falsehood suggestion or deceit. So via-negativa, someone is lying if they distribute a falsehood suggestion or deceit, regardless of whether they intend to. This is a higher standard of suppression of falsehood – one that is necessary to prevent the spread of falsehoods. Because we have been defeated once by the falsehood of monotheism, and the same people are trying to defeat us with mono-classism, and monopoly. We are the only people to create a market between classes and ideas, and everyone else produced a monopoly equalitarianism, or a monopoly hierarchy, rather than the markets that have made our successes possible. People always resist paying the costs of incremental increases in suppression of opportunity for free riding, conspiracy, deception, fraud, theft and violence, just as they resist paying all costs of creating and maintaining the commons: physical, normative, and informational. That does not mean that we are always and everywhere paying those costs in exchange for the most valuable commons we can produce: good information, truthful speech, the trust, economic velocity, and innovation that results from it. Because the only way a small, high-individual-investment, superior population can compete is by producing the economy necessary to pay for the superior technological means ( and arms) by which to compensate for their numbers. Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • My Very Simple Scientific Technique and What I Have Learned from Religion

    October 23rd, 2018 6:54 AM MY VERY SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUE AND WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM RELIGION [R]eligion is, surprisingly, the ‘hard problem’ of social science. Every other problem I have set out to solve (understand) has been trivial by comparison. Truth took me a year. The grammars took me less than six months. And those are very hard problems. Religion was much harder. I use a very simple (scientific) technique, that long-term followers know well, which is to attack a problem, causing other people to defend it, until I understand their incentives. This is a better method of research than reading what other authors opine (make excuses for or against.) I am trying to understand (better than I do now) why the the demand for the God (bad) and Jesus (good) mythos’ (they are different) persists among some people and groups and not others. I have begun to understand it better than I did. I understand (easily) why certain classes demand it. I have begun to understand the different weights different cultures attach to it. And I am ‘testing’ whether (I think correctly) it is simply a failure to provide mindfulness by non-nonsense means (and why governments would resist teaching a non-nonsense method of mindfulness). Mostly what I have come to understand, is that people are ignorant of the available options and their intuitions have been so successfully trained by the one they already hold, that they cannot imagine training their intuitions by any other means. So (a) man needs mindfulness, and (b) and man needs mindfulness to different degrees, and (c) the mindfulness is dependent a bit on genetics of mindfulness (males less than females in general, and females more in general), (d) personality needs, (e) class circumstances, (f) cultural-political circumstances – all of which generate (or do not generate) demand for mindfulness. Now, that mindfulness can be provided by the Hindu Means (literary immersion), the three abrahamic monotheistic means (organized indoctrination) of low(islam), working(christian), and middle (jewish) religion; the buddhist means (training); the rather ‘new age/european’ (philosophy-as-religion-substitute) means; the shinto and ritual means (ritual); or by cognitive-behavioral education that we call ‘Stoicism’ for context. And there is a great deal to lean just from the ORDER of those methods of training: how much infrastructure is needed to preserve the ‘illusion’ of the mythos vs argument vs ritual vs education. And how much ‘ability’ given the means of training (immersion in hinduism through individual education in stoicism). But this is just a matter of WEALTH sufficient to pay for the means of TRAINING vs a given period of time: ie: producing the mass illusions of the ancient religions required an informational vulnerability (absence of knowledge and alternatives) that existed only in the past – and no longer does. So if one wants to produce a religion that is not made of lies, it is entirely possible to do so – with a total absence of religious parables. And instead, a reliance on parables of history, and training in the virtues. Christianity has a very simple set of underlying principles that are constituted in only four statements. Islam and judaism can also be, but to do so is horrifying. Christianity’s four statements are quite simple and will in general produce consequent goods. There is just no need to lie to people and train them to be vulnerable to lies, and train priests to lie, and politicians to lie by the same means in order to teach those four rules. No more lies by judaism, devolves into christianity, devolves into islam, evolves into marxism, postmodernism, feminism. No more lies. People need “imaginary friends, parents, leaders” for very well underst reasons: they have been failed by those around them, to provide positive socialization and training by existential means. We are able to teach truthful speech (science) and there is no reason we cannot provide positive socialization and training (mindfulness) by equally truthful means. Convergence on the Truth: continuous correspondence between reality perception cognition recollection description negotiation, and advocacy. Affections. -Curt

  • My Very Simple Scientific Technique and What I Have Learned from Religion

    October 23rd, 2018 6:54 AM MY VERY SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUE AND WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM RELIGION [R]eligion is, surprisingly, the ‘hard problem’ of social science. Every other problem I have set out to solve (understand) has been trivial by comparison. Truth took me a year. The grammars took me less than six months. And those are very hard problems. Religion was much harder. I use a very simple (scientific) technique, that long-term followers know well, which is to attack a problem, causing other people to defend it, until I understand their incentives. This is a better method of research than reading what other authors opine (make excuses for or against.) I am trying to understand (better than I do now) why the the demand for the God (bad) and Jesus (good) mythos’ (they are different) persists among some people and groups and not others. I have begun to understand it better than I did. I understand (easily) why certain classes demand it. I have begun to understand the different weights different cultures attach to it. And I am ‘testing’ whether (I think correctly) it is simply a failure to provide mindfulness by non-nonsense means (and why governments would resist teaching a non-nonsense method of mindfulness). Mostly what I have come to understand, is that people are ignorant of the available options and their intuitions have been so successfully trained by the one they already hold, that they cannot imagine training their intuitions by any other means. So (a) man needs mindfulness, and (b) and man needs mindfulness to different degrees, and (c) the mindfulness is dependent a bit on genetics of mindfulness (males less than females in general, and females more in general), (d) personality needs, (e) class circumstances, (f) cultural-political circumstances – all of which generate (or do not generate) demand for mindfulness. Now, that mindfulness can be provided by the Hindu Means (literary immersion), the three abrahamic monotheistic means (organized indoctrination) of low(islam), working(christian), and middle (jewish) religion; the buddhist means (training); the rather ‘new age/european’ (philosophy-as-religion-substitute) means; the shinto and ritual means (ritual); or by cognitive-behavioral education that we call ‘Stoicism’ for context. And there is a great deal to lean just from the ORDER of those methods of training: how much infrastructure is needed to preserve the ‘illusion’ of the mythos vs argument vs ritual vs education. And how much ‘ability’ given the means of training (immersion in hinduism through individual education in stoicism). But this is just a matter of WEALTH sufficient to pay for the means of TRAINING vs a given period of time: ie: producing the mass illusions of the ancient religions required an informational vulnerability (absence of knowledge and alternatives) that existed only in the past – and no longer does. So if one wants to produce a religion that is not made of lies, it is entirely possible to do so – with a total absence of religious parables. And instead, a reliance on parables of history, and training in the virtues. Christianity has a very simple set of underlying principles that are constituted in only four statements. Islam and judaism can also be, but to do so is horrifying. Christianity’s four statements are quite simple and will in general produce consequent goods. There is just no need to lie to people and train them to be vulnerable to lies, and train priests to lie, and politicians to lie by the same means in order to teach those four rules. No more lies by judaism, devolves into christianity, devolves into islam, evolves into marxism, postmodernism, feminism. No more lies. People need “imaginary friends, parents, leaders” for very well underst reasons: they have been failed by those around them, to provide positive socialization and training by existential means. We are able to teach truthful speech (science) and there is no reason we cannot provide positive socialization and training (mindfulness) by equally truthful means. Convergence on the Truth: continuous correspondence between reality perception cognition recollection description negotiation, and advocacy. Affections. -Curt

  • MY VERY SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUE AND WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM RELIGION Religi

    MY VERY SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUE AND WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM RELIGION

    Religion is, surprisingly, the ‘hard problem’ of social science. Every other problem I have set out to solve (understand) has been trivial by comparison. Truth took me a year. The grammars took me less than six months. And those are very hard problems. Religion was much harder.

    I use a very simple (scientific) technique, that long-term followers know well, which is to attack a problem, causing other people to defend it, until I understand their incentives. This is a better method of research than reading what other authors opine (make excuses for or against.)

    I am trying to understand (better than I do now) why the the demand for the God (bad) and Jesus (good) mythos’ (they are different) persists among some people and groups and not others. I have begun to understand it better than I did. I understand (easily) why certain classes demand it. I have begun to understand the different weights different cultures attach to it.

    And I am ‘testing’ whether (I think correctly) it is simply a failure to provide mindfulness by non-nonsense means (and why governments would resist teaching a non-nonsense method of mindfulness).

    Mostly what I have come to understand, is that people are ignorant of the available options and their intuitions have been so successfully trained by the one they already hold, that they cannot imagine training their intuitions by any other means.

    So (a) man needs mindfulness, and (b) and man needs mindfulness to different degrees, and (c) the mindfulness is dependent a bit on genetics of mindfulness (males less than females in general, and females more in general), (d) personality needs, (e) class circumstances, (f) cultural-political circumstances – all of which generate (or do not generate) demand for mindfulness.

    Now, that mindfulness can be provided by the Hindu Means (literary immersion), the three abrahamic monotheistic means (organized indoctrination) of low(islam), working(christian), and middle (jewish) religion; the buddhist means (training); the rather ‘new age/european’ (philosophy-as-religion-substitute) means; the shinto and ritual means (ritual); or by cognitive-behavioral education that we call ‘Stoicism’ for context.

    And there is a great deal to lean just from the ORDER of those methods of training: how much infrastructure is needed to preserve the ‘illusion’ of the mythos vs argument vs ritual vs education. And how much ‘ability’ given the means of training (immersion in hinduism through individual education in stoicism). But this is just a matter of WEALTH sufficient to pay for the means of TRAINING vs a given period of time: ie: producing the mass illusions of the ancient religions required an informational vulnerability (absence of knowledge and alternatives) that existed only in the past – and no longer does.

    So if one wants to produce a religion that is not made of lies, it is entirely possible to do so – with a total absence of religious parables. And instead, a reliance on parables of history, and training in the virtues.

    Christianity has a very simple set of underlying principles that are constituted in only four statements. Islam and judaism can also be, but to do so is horrifying. Christianity’s four statements are quite simple and will in general produce consequent goods.

    There is just no need to lie to people and train them to be vulnerable to lies, and train priests to lie, and politicians to lie by the same means in order to teach those four rules.

    No more lies by judaism, devolves into christianity, devolves into islam, evolves into marxism, postmodernism, feminism.

    No more lies. People need “imaginary friends, parents, leaders” for very well underst reasons: they have been failed by those around them, to provide positive socialization and training by existential means.

    We are able to teach truthful speech (science) and there is no reason we cannot provide positive socialization and training (mindfulness) by equally truthful means.

    Convergence on the Truth: continuous correspondence between reality perception cognition recollection description negotiation, and advocacy.

    Affections.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-23 06:54:00 UTC

  • “ALL YOUR PSEUDOSCIENCES ARE BELONG TO US.” Pseudoscience by analogy is no help.

    “ALL YOUR PSEUDOSCIENCES ARE BELONG TO US.”

    Pseudoscience by analogy is no help. People form groups. Those groups are non-arbitrary. we have names for all of those groups. Groups form in well understood organizations, using well studied means of organizing, well understood languages, using well understood values. We organize by the language of our QUINTILE: with 5-religion being the language of the bottom and feminine RESISTANCE and 4-Literature, 3-Philosophy, 2-Science, 1-Law, as the language of the quintiles. These quintiles form a competing market but appeal mainly to the classes that practice them. the evidence is that religious organizations evolve to resist political orders of aristocracy. And aristocracy either manipulates religion or quashes it. Religion is for children. Men are motivated by incentives. The weak tell stories for attention, the strong impose their preferred order, and the able produce and make use of incentives.

    ie: grow up.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 13:57:00 UTC