Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • A Few Personal Notes on Rorty

    5-Literature 4-Religion 3-Philosophy (Moral Entrepreneurs) 2-Intellectual History 1-History 0-Law 1-Science —Curt Tautology(necessary), Proof(possible), Rational(potential), Literature(meaningful) —Curt We are all relying upon narratives that provide decidability for the purpose of pursuing allies in the achievement of a condition, not truth. We only rely upon a truthful narrative when it assists us attracting allies in the achievement of a condition. –Curt Shinto when we’re born, Confucian when we’re adolescent, Christian when we’re married, Buddhist when we die. — Japanese Saying Rationality – in that one consents to be persuaded – is a social virtue not a human faculty. Reason is a human faculty. Rationality is a moral virtue – a property of cooperation. — Rorty restated by Doolittle “It’s not a surprise that religion, democracy, and science, are in conflict: power.”–Rorty “Another sense of philosophy describes how various ideas fit together.” — Rorty. Well, I would say that philosophy consists of logic (necessity), criticism (science), integration(rationality), advocacy(moral literature), and imagining (fantasy literature). And that religion conflates advocacy, imagining, and Law (force). –Curt “if we take care of education and democratic freedom then truth will take care of itself”–Dewey. Well, it turns out that Dewey/Rorty are wrong. Just the opposite. – Curt Judaism is, like American pragmatism, a feminine philosophy, in that consequences to the commons are irrelevant. All that matters is the consequences to those collectively extant in the moment. — Curt Rorty makes the progressive error of the steady-state. We always fight the red queen. We have lost that under the temporary prosperity of industrialism. But the red queen has shifted just as crime has shifted. We compete against economies and resources and institutions, not against farming and territory and demographics. — Curt What objectively right vs objectively better = Survival of your gene pool. It is objectively right, and objectively better. — Curt

  • A Few Personal Notes on Rorty

    5-Literature 4-Religion 3-Philosophy (Moral Entrepreneurs) 2-Intellectual History 1-History 0-Law 1-Science —Curt Tautology(necessary), Proof(possible), Rational(potential), Literature(meaningful) —Curt We are all relying upon narratives that provide decidability for the purpose of pursuing allies in the achievement of a condition, not truth. We only rely upon a truthful narrative when it assists us attracting allies in the achievement of a condition. –Curt Shinto when we’re born, Confucian when we’re adolescent, Christian when we’re married, Buddhist when we die. — Japanese Saying Rationality – in that one consents to be persuaded – is a social virtue not a human faculty. Reason is a human faculty. Rationality is a moral virtue – a property of cooperation. — Rorty restated by Doolittle “It’s not a surprise that religion, democracy, and science, are in conflict: power.”–Rorty “Another sense of philosophy describes how various ideas fit together.” — Rorty. Well, I would say that philosophy consists of logic (necessity), criticism (science), integration(rationality), advocacy(moral literature), and imagining (fantasy literature). And that religion conflates advocacy, imagining, and Law (force). –Curt “if we take care of education and democratic freedom then truth will take care of itself”–Dewey. Well, it turns out that Dewey/Rorty are wrong. Just the opposite. – Curt Judaism is, like American pragmatism, a feminine philosophy, in that consequences to the commons are irrelevant. All that matters is the consequences to those collectively extant in the moment. — Curt Rorty makes the progressive error of the steady-state. We always fight the red queen. We have lost that under the temporary prosperity of industrialism. But the red queen has shifted just as crime has shifted. We compete against economies and resources and institutions, not against farming and territory and demographics. — Curt What objectively right vs objectively better = Survival of your gene pool. It is objectively right, and objectively better. — Curt

  • NOTES FROM THIS MORNING’S REVIEW OF CURRENT STATE 5-Literature 4-Religion 3-Phil

    NOTES FROM THIS MORNING’S REVIEW OF CURRENT STATE

    5-Literature

    4-Religion

    3-Philosophy (Moral Entrepreneurs)

    2-Intellectual History

    1-History

    0-Law

    1-Science

    —Curt

    Tautology(necessary),

    Proof(possible),

    Rational(potential),

    Literature(meaningful) —Curt

    We are all relying upon narratives that provide decidability for the purpose of pursuing allies in the achievement of a condition, not truth. We only rely upon a truthful narrative when it assists us attracting allies in the achievement of a condition. –Curt

    Shinto when we’re born,

    Confucian when we’re adolescent,

    Christian when we’re married,

    Buddhist when we die. — Japanese Saying

    Rationality – in that one consents to be persuaded – is a social virtue not a human faculty. Reason is a human faculty. Rationality is a moral virtue – a property of cooperation. — Rorty restated by Doolittle

    “It’s not a surprise that religion, democracy, and science, are in conflict: power.”–Rorty

    “Another sense of philosophy describes how various ideas fit together.” — Rorty. Well, I would say that philosophy consists of logic (necessity), criticism (science), integration(rationality), advocacy(moral literature), and imagining (fantasy literature). And that religion conflates advocacy, imagining, and Law (force). –Curt

    “if we take care of education and democratic freedom then truth will take care of itself”–Dewey. Well, it turns out that Dewey/Rorty are wrong. Just the opposite. – Curt

    Judaism is, like American pragmatism, a feminine philosophy, in that consequences to the commons are irrelevant. All that matters is the consequences to those collectively extant in the moment. — Curt

    Rorty makes the progressive error of the steady-state. We always fight the red queen. We have lost that under the temporary prosperity of industrialism. But the red queen has shifted just as crime has shifted. We compete against economies and resources and institutions, not against farming and territory and demographics. — Curt

    What objectively right vs objectively better = Survival of your gene pool. It is objectively right, and objectively better. — Curt

    Innovative < —————- > Defensive

    …. …. …. Communism (universalism) (impossible)

    …. …. Socialism (competitively impossible)

    …. Social Democracy (possible as long as competitive)

    Market Government (Trade) …. Anarchism (impossible)

    ….Classical-Liberalism, (

    …. ….Christian Monarchism

    …. …. ….Fascism (particularism)

    Communism

    …. (lower class – short term – consumption – r-selection )

    …. (mandatory consumption)

    …. (reproductive offense – distribution of assets )

    Market Government

    …. (middle class – medium term – production)

    …. (mandatory exchagne)

    …. (productive offense – market eschange of assets)

    Fascism

    …. (upper class – long term – preservation – K-selection)

    …. (mandatory production/contribution)

    …. (organizational offense – concentration of assets)

    We alter between these strategies as our prosperity allows.

    —Curt

    The west is deconflationary. we do not confuse methods of arguments, disciplines that make use of them, institutions that provide and manage them. We maintain a competition, and circumvent a monopoly.

    LIMITS: Law, legal jurisdiction – secular jurisdiction – a discovered science of dispute resolution.

    UTILITY: Trade – practical jurisdiction – a learned craft of pragmatism.

    IDEALS: Matters spiritual – are literary – and an imagined art of aspiration.

    Islam and Judaism are ‘simpler’ methods than western. simpler than Chinese. And suitable for a people less intelligent

    —Curt

    –“The collapse of the ottoman empire (Turks) allows the primitives (Salafis) to determine the authoritarian voice of Islam. Had the Turkish sultan maintained control of Islam, then it is possible that Islam would have reformed and the primitivism might have been suppressed as it was in other civilizations.”— Roger Scruton.

    “There is nothing that a democratic polity is accountable to but itself.”—Rorty But this is false. This says that the majority underclass under majoritarian monopoly rule is unaccountable to the consequences they force upon the middle and upper classes, and the genetic, territorial, normative, institutional, informational, and monumental capital of the civilization.—Curt Doolittle

    —“Truth isn’t correspondence with reality. Truth is just whatever it takes for people to obtain what they want.”–Rorty He is saying nothing matters. My question is why others have any reason or justification for not committing violence against those that oppose our preferences and interests. –Curt

    —“Conservatives are people who are aware of the fact that they’ve inherited something good, and want to conserve what is good. It’s much easier to destroy things than create them. It’s much easier to criticize existing things that are imperfect, than to construct things are better.”—Roger Scruton

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 15:37:00 UTC

  • Great question. How do we do it today, and how do we do it in science, engineeri

    Great question. How do we do it today, and how do we do it in science, engineering, math, …? Competition.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 15:36:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787316199373869056

    Reply addressees: @danielcraigb

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/787115164982214656

    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/787115164982214656

  • (in progress)(note to self) Q&A: —“Curt what’s wrong with Economic science and

    (in progress)(note to self)

    Q&A: —“Curt what’s wrong with Economic science and Economists in your opinion?” — Jose R. Alzaibar

    1. UNSCIENTIFIC (INCOMPLETE)

    Well, I’ll try to do a better job than Nassim Taleb at making a similar point, and say that to testify that you speak truthfully, and that you are not engaging in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, for the purpose of committing fraud, economists would have to provide the following warranties of due diligence of their propositions:

    a) categorical consistency (identity)

    b) logical consistency (internal consistency)

    c) empirical consistency (external correspondence)

    d) existential possibility (operational descriptions) *praxeological*

    e) moral possibility (consisting of voluntary transfers)

    f) limits, full accounting, and parsimony (fully accounted)

    In economics, except in rare circumstances, only a,b,c are ever vaguely satisfied. item (d) is almost never satisfied, and (e) is never satisfied, and they seem to be not even aware of the importance of (f).

    Now, regarding (d), existential possibility, in the physical sciences we do not know the first principles of the universe, we only know that the universe equilibrates fully at all times, and therefore, that mathematics can be used to precisely model phenomenon that we observe. At some point we hope to know the first principles of the universe, and once we do, we can test our theories by operational construction from first principles. So in the physical sciences we must run tests and rely upon mathematical equilibrium (so-called ‘perfect symmetry’) and upon determinism (the result of the production of perfect symmetry via perfect equilibrium) as the test of our theories.

    Also, regarding (e), moral possibility, the universe does not have the choice of acting morally and preserving the incentive to cooperate, or immorally to hinder the incentive to cooperate. The universe is amoral, and we do not cooperate with it, we are merely subject to its laws.

    So (d) existential possibility, by tested by operational construction and (e) moral possibility, tested by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited externalities of the same criteria, are not properties we can yet (d), or ever shall (e), ask one another to warranty that one has done due diligence to test prior to testifying (stating) any theory.

    But when making statements in economics (the monetary measurement of cooperation), social sciences (the categorical study of cooperation), and the institutional method of existence of cooperation: habit, norm, ethics, morals, law, tradition, ritual, and mythos – we can both test (d) existential possibility and (e) moral possibility.

    The reason being that we know the first principles of human behavior through subjective testing of incentives (‘understanding the other person’s incentives’). and we must know that because without an understanding of intentions and incentives we could neither cooperate, nor reward one another for cooperation, nor punish one another for actions that inhibit cooperation. We could not form juries which depend entirely upon the ascertainment of intentions and incentives. The pre-cooperative creature finds safety in numbers, mating in numbers, information in numbers, but merely seizes opportunities amidst competitive threats within the limits of the creature’s range of perception and action. They do not cooperate. To cooperate requires a sympathetic transfer of intention between individuals.

    So, since man is a rational actor in the pursuit of his desires and following his incentives – even at the extremes of mental disability, if we can ascertain a sequence of events and actions, each of which we can subjectively test as ‘reasonably rational’, then we can construct a recipe (sequence of events) under which the individual’s actions are ethical, moral, and possible – or not.

    Now we come to (f), the determination of limits, parsimony, and full accounting. And these tests demonstrate the troublesome difference between our warranty of due diligence of the physical universe and our warranty of due diligence in cooperation. That is that the universe perfectly equilibrates because it must, and man does not perfectly equilibrate *because he must not.* And in that difference we find the opposite importance between mathematics of perfect symmetry in the physical universe, and operational construction in in the universe of human cooperation.

    So, mainstream

    (…how man always bends objective ethics and morals to accommodate current distributions of ability…)

    2. SELF CONFIRMING SELECTION BIAS INSTEAD OF FULL ACCOUNTING

    3. TRUTH (SCIENCE, FACILITATION,EUGENICS) VS FALSEHOOD (INTERFERENCE/FRAUD/DYSGENICS)

    Different camps possess different levels of confidence (arrogance).

    (a) social science (Austrian – positive externality) long term.

    (b) rule of law (freshwater – balanced externality) medium term.

    (c) rule by discretion (saltwater – negative externality) short term.

    So the conservative movement practices social science, the rule of law movement practices good government, and the rule by discretion movement practices what they consider the most immediately human (arbitrary) discretion.

    Different camps favor families and capital construction and others favor individual consumption.

    Different camps are more comfortable interfering with planning and contract, and others are less comfortable interfering with planning an contract.

    4. REPRODUCTIVE TIME PREFERENCE, GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY

    (a) Parasites encourage consumption by the host, and then move to a new host.

    (b) Members insure one another against extraordinary hardships.

    (c) People subject the population to constant culling in pursuit of constant improvement.

    5. UNIVERSALISM

    6. DYSGENIC, DECIVILIZING, DEVOLUTIONARY

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 09:39:00 UTC

  • “Modern Brits, whether they be Scots or Englishmen or Northern Irish, are all a

    —“Modern Brits, whether they be Scots or Englishmen or Northern Irish, are all a mix between Yamnaya, Western Hunter-Gatherers and Early European Farmers. They have been on the island for 6000 years (Bell Beakers). Before that, you had the pre-Indo-European inhabitants that Ulysses speaks of. Although they never really disappeared, they just mixed with the dominant Bell Beakers to form a single cohesive people.”—Alexander Zavialov

    Alexander Zavialov is amazing.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-11 07:02:00 UTC

  • “In learning about the universe, ourselves, and our place in it, we can improve

    —“In learning about the universe, ourselves, and our place in it, we can improve our understanding of all three levels, with each improvement of our understanding of a specific level and then refactoring our understanding of the other three levels in light of that new understanding. Conversely, a bottleneck in a specific level throttles our progress in all.” — Moritz Bierling

    ( This is the purpose of philosophy: refactoring in response to new understanding – Curt )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-10 14:51:00 UTC

  • SEQUENCE: … PHYSICAL LAW … … EVOLUTIONARY LAW … … … COOPERATIVE (NAT

    SEQUENCE:

    … PHYSICAL LAW

    … … EVOLUTIONARY LAW

    … … … COOPERATIVE (NATURAL) LAW

    … … … … SENTIENT LAW (Limits of the Mind)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-10 09:00:00 UTC

  • The Church Failed To Reform And The Sciences Didn’t Have Time To Complete Their Evolutionary Program

    I mean, another way to look at the 20th century is that in response to Darwin, Maxwell, Spencer, (a) the church failed to reform in response by stating that god and natural and physical laws were the same expression of his divinity, and (b) our intellectual class failed to synthesize operationalism as a means of reforming scientific thought-at its new-grand-scale, and (c) the Jewish pseudoscientists (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor) filled a void that both state, academy, and finance could use to profit from the new wave of democratic voters (customers), students (customers), and consumers (customers) who they could not force to spend down their accumulated cultural and institutional capital.

    We can easily argue that this is the same strategy the ancient Jews took in response to the imposition of (scientific Aryan-universalist) roman law on top of their (mystical authoritarian separatist) Jewish law. I mean, it worked against classical civilization, why wouldn’t it work against restored classical civilization of the enlightenment? Intellectuals provide a product for a market. I am just concerned that we do not let another era of fraudulent defective products like ancient Jewish mysticism and modern Jewish pseudoscience into a civilization where second tier intellectuals, women, and the underclass are all too willing to embrace utter falsehoods at the expense of their civilization and it’s progenitors – and in the case of western civilization, all of human kind that benefits from western creativity. So what we see, is that between the failure of democracy, the progressive failure of Keynesian economics, the failure of Freudian psychology, of Boazian anthropology, of Marxist economics and sociology, and even Cantorian infinity to survive scrutiny by late 20’th and early 21st century science, that we have at least a temporary opportunity to overthrow the Second Great Deceit’s attack on western truth, science, and eugenics. But we have a short time before the second great deceit and it’s customers in women and the underclasses, possess such numbers that we can be forced into another dark age. And that the promise of a eugenic north America, like a eugenic Europe, insulated from the steppe, desert, and jungle, can continue to provide an engine of innovation for mankind. For the simple reason that we pay the high cost of truthfulness: That discipline of eliminating error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, that we call ‘science’. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine We must achieve by force what they have achieved in both the ancient and modern world by deceits.

  • The Church Failed To Reform And The Sciences Didn’t Have Time To Complete Their Evolutionary Program

    I mean, another way to look at the 20th century is that in response to Darwin, Maxwell, Spencer, (a) the church failed to reform in response by stating that god and natural and physical laws were the same expression of his divinity, and (b) our intellectual class failed to synthesize operationalism as a means of reforming scientific thought-at its new-grand-scale, and (c) the Jewish pseudoscientists (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor) filled a void that both state, academy, and finance could use to profit from the new wave of democratic voters (customers), students (customers), and consumers (customers) who they could not force to spend down their accumulated cultural and institutional capital.

    We can easily argue that this is the same strategy the ancient Jews took in response to the imposition of (scientific Aryan-universalist) roman law on top of their (mystical authoritarian separatist) Jewish law. I mean, it worked against classical civilization, why wouldn’t it work against restored classical civilization of the enlightenment? Intellectuals provide a product for a market. I am just concerned that we do not let another era of fraudulent defective products like ancient Jewish mysticism and modern Jewish pseudoscience into a civilization where second tier intellectuals, women, and the underclass are all too willing to embrace utter falsehoods at the expense of their civilization and it’s progenitors – and in the case of western civilization, all of human kind that benefits from western creativity. So what we see, is that between the failure of democracy, the progressive failure of Keynesian economics, the failure of Freudian psychology, of Boazian anthropology, of Marxist economics and sociology, and even Cantorian infinity to survive scrutiny by late 20’th and early 21st century science, that we have at least a temporary opportunity to overthrow the Second Great Deceit’s attack on western truth, science, and eugenics. But we have a short time before the second great deceit and it’s customers in women and the underclasses, possess such numbers that we can be forced into another dark age. And that the promise of a eugenic north America, like a eugenic Europe, insulated from the steppe, desert, and jungle, can continue to provide an engine of innovation for mankind. For the simple reason that we pay the high cost of truthfulness: That discipline of eliminating error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, that we call ‘science’. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine We must achieve by force what they have achieved in both the ancient and modern world by deceits.