Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • REGARDING: Austin, I agree, which is why I produce the philosophical work I do.

    REGARDING: https://www.facebook.com/ProducerPetersen/posts/878432462215735

    Austin,

    I agree, which is why I produce the philosophical work I do. But then, the central issue is not technology. It is that the moral and ethical basis of the rothbardian libertine movement is antithetical to the conservative, and classical liberal tradition. And it is antithetical to western civilization.

    So if you mean ‘libertarian’ in the sense that Hayek meant it: as a classical liberal ‘aristocracy of everyone’, then it is possible. If you mean ‘libertarian’ in the sense that rothbard appropriated the term just as progressives appropriated the term ‘liberal’, and where there is no prohibition on fraud, deceit, free riding. Where blackmail is considered a voluntary exchange. And where is there no provision for the production of commons. Where, in fact, libertinism is an outright attack on the commons. Then, no such reconciliation, or pairing of interests is possible. The conservative aristocratic egalitarian ethic requires the production of commons. That is our western competitive advantage.

    THE WESTERN GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY: TRUTH TELLING

    All groups are unaware of their first-order strategies – what we call metaphysical value judgements. And we are unaware of ours.

    The west *outpaced* the rest for very simple reasons.

    1) Being poor and small in number, self financed warriors, reliant on technology and coordinated tactics to fight.

    2) Truth Telling necessary for coordinating tactics.

    3) Heroism, and Sovereignty that resulted from the demonstration of it.

    4) Property rights that resulted from heroism and sovereignty.

    5) The production of truth-telling as a normative commons, the total prohibition of involuntary transfer of every possible kind, as a normative commons, and all defended through the jury.

    7) The jury and common law system out of property, truth telling, and the development of truth as a necessary commons.

    6) The production of material commons, as a result of the total suppression of free riding.

    The status we all sought, and the Aristocracy we all sought to join, held that every man is his own sovereign, and therefore his own legislator. Retaliation against wrongdoing is his choice. And civility arises from the use of the common law to resolve conflicts between individuals by objective means: property.

    Our rate of evolution is in no small part because the common law and jury can outlaw new forms of theft faster than any state, and therefore eliminate means of rent seeking. This reduces risk.

    Our rate of evolution is in no small part because we are the only people that tell the truth – on earth. Where truth means correspondent with reality, and absent of imaginary content. And where the central purpose of courts is to identify people who are not telling the truth, and prosecuting them for it.

    Our rate of evolution is in no small part because we invented truth, and because we invented truth, we invented the jury, the rule of law, reason, science, and all the advantages that western civilization has brought to the world both in the classical and modern eras.

    Economic velocity is determined largely by the elimination of risk. The elimination of risk is determined by the degree of suppression of free riding: meaning non-productive actions: (violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, involuntary transfer by externality, privatizing the commons, socializing losses, rent seeking, corruption, conspiracy, and conquest).

    Demand for the state increases whenever there is a discrepancy between the means of resolving conflicts that incite retaliation, and the means of producing conflicts. As cooperation evolves in complexity so do our means of parasitism and predation. Demand for the state decreases whenever the means of dispute resolution in lie of retaliation are provided.

    Our truth telling evolved as a necessary competitive advantage. And all our western advantage over other groups evolved from the value of truth telling – despite the fact that telling the truth is a high tax for all of us to pay. And it is a tax we are all reluctant to pay. And one many seek to avoid.

    THE SUICIDAL IMMORALITY OF ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS

    The west did not succeed on libertine (rothbardian) morality – no one can. Any group demonstrating rothbardian ethics will be defeated and punished by neighbors the same way we punish piracy and white collar crime – and recently, various forms of monetary fraud. The west succeeded in outpacing all others because of the sheer breadth of our morality, which forces all people into material production by denying them (rapidly) from all forms of non-productive sustenance (free riding).

    (This is what the socialists have sought to reverse: they wish to return us to parasitism. Because it is profitable for administrators, and desirable by the unproductive, and uncompetitive.)

    And rothbard intentionally – for reasons that are obvious in retrospect – left open deceit. Liberty is not possible under deceit. Because deceit increases demand for the state as an arbiter of differences, and destroys the use of the jury.

    UNITING CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERTARIANS

    I set out to produce the intellectual framework for doing so. Because conservatives lack a rational language for advocating their ideas. No conservative has produced either a rational or ratio-scientific framework as have the marxists and the Rothbardians.

    And with that rational framework, conservatives are able to make arguments like those I make here, and defend their aristocratic, egalitarian, high trust, highly moral society, as the only one that can possibly construct liberty. And the only one that ever has constructed liberty.

    Conservatives flee into moral allegory because they lack the rational, scientific and economic basis upon which to construct an argument for their moral biases.

    Libertarians flee into rothbardian libertinism because they lack the philosophical basis to rationally argue against the intellectual errors of the enlightenment.

    IN THE END THE WESTERN ADVANTAGE IS TRUTH TELLING

    So rather than a less moral society, we require a more moral society. We must purge the state of free riding and deceit. Re-institutionalize the requirement for truthful speech. And re-institutionalize the universal prohibition on convenient falsehoods.

    It is perhaps useful to convey that the germans since Kant have tried repeatedly to develop an honest dishonesty, culminating in Heidegger. That he jewish authors: Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises and Rothbard created pseudosciences. And that Americans have, using the soviet-financed Frankfurt school, created postmodernism, feminism, and political correctness. All of which are systemic deceits the purpose of which is to overthrow western truth telling.

    Truth matters. Liberty will be predicated upon truth. Or there shall be no liberty. And Rothbard intentionally preserved and justified deceit in his writings.

    There is no room for cunning in a moral society. Libertinism is a cunning plan. It is also an immoral one.

    I’ll try to explain why good people can be fooled by immoral argument in another comment at another time. But libertarians are just as easily fooled as any other dimension of the political triangle.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-30 03:21:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN POSITION ON GENETIC MODIFICATION (good read)(from elsewhere)(worth

    PROPERTARIAN POSITION ON GENETIC MODIFICATION

    (good read)(from elsewhere)(worth repeating)

    Hiroshi: We are opening Pandora’s Box.

    Curt: Or are we achieving our potential?

    Hiroshi: Yes, but potential for good or evil?

    Curt: Good and evil are technical terms in my universe. And this technology, like violence, is neutral.

    The question is whether the ends produce risk to the genome. But since at all times when we suppress the reproduction of the underclasses, or when upper classes migrate to new areas, mankind evolves rapidly; and because morality increases and impulsivity decreases and time preference lengthens with intelligence, our only choice between Brazil on one end and Star Trek on the other in a populated planet is this one.( Superior intelligence does not breed superior ambition or aggression. )

    As far as I know aggression defeats intelligence and Huntington missed that observation.

    Hegel was wrong as well – heroism and by consequence, sovereignty, jury and truth telling are the cause of western rates of development.

    Hiroshi: In my universe, good and evil are not technical terms. Imagine a universe in which no human beings exist. In that universe there is neither good nor evil: everything is technical and neutral. Good and evil can exist only when human beings exist. Good and evil become important terms when human beings decides their mode of being or make “judgment” in the sense of Hannah Arendt. (See my short essay above on Arendt’s conception of judging)

    Curt: Sorry, I meant ‘technical’ in the sense of objective. And objective in the sense of independent of introspection. I also use the term ‘decidable’, appropriated from mathematics, to avoid the loading on the term ‘judgement’. The difference being that introspection and therefore subjectivity is present in judgement, and not present in decidability. So good and evil are decidable propositions.

    In this sequence: One can be lax. One an err. One can privatize. One can engage in predation. One can engage in destruction without benefit to the self. One can engage in destruction that produces a chain of destructive externalities. The last is my definition of ‘evil’ and immoral.

    If on the other hand, one warrants defense against externalities (takes all possible known precautions), in order to create a chain of beneficial externalities – then this is ‘good’ and moral.

    The concepts of good and evil, judgement, justice, and morality, have been inherited from our ancient past and remain loaded with introspective demands, because of our failure to articulate the necessary and sufficient properties of cooperation. But the necessary and sufficient properties of cooperation are no longer unknown but trivial.

    What remains is the analysis of strategies. Western (scientific) Truth, Anglo-Jewish Political Correctness, Russian-Jewish Postmodernism, Chinese Delay-Deceit, Hindu Avoidance, and Muslim Denial and rebellion. Each is a strategy for group persistence.

    In the context of this question, the positive externalities of improving the genome, and creating supermen – or at least, highly intelligent, attractive (symmetrical) and with a moral bias, is hard to argue with.

    This technology exists already. We do it by assortative mating. We call it ‘castes’ or ‘classes’. A race to the top (selective breeding) has always produced better ends than a race to the bottom (through excess reproduction of the lower classes).

    So my question is instead the non-intuitive: we are now engaged in an experiment called ‘redistribution’ which increases the rates of the lower classes, and suppresses the rates of the middle classes, and has isolated our upper classes. This experiment has evolved (through advocacy of democracy under the ‘enlightenment’) into a dysgenic disaster that one can easily call ‘evil’, and it’s promotors ‘evil’ as well, by the very technical criterion I proposed above. Society has become ordered to value a negative by use of a ‘judgement’ that democracy is a good, when the consequences are an evil.

    So why is it not beneficial to reorder society around a judgement that improves man, rather than devolves him?

    I would much rather have a public debate, and a ‘judgement’ about how to handle the improvement of man, than the current debate about how to degenerate him.

    So in this sense, suppressing this technology is to persist an evil.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    ( Eli Harman: add this to the weapons cache)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-24 03:16:00 UTC

  • POSITION ON GENETIC MODIFICATION (good read)(from elsewhere) Hiroshi: We are ope

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/science/biologists-call-for-halt-to-gene-editing-technique-in-humans.htmlPROPERTARIAN POSITION ON GENETIC MODIFICATION

    (good read)(from elsewhere)

    Hiroshi: We are opening Pandora’s Box.

    Curt: Or are we achieving our potential?

    Hiroshi: Yes, but potential for good or evil?

    Curt: Good and evil are technical terms in my universe. And this technology, like violence, is neutral.

    The question is whether the ends produce risk to the genome. But since at all times when we suppress the reproduction of the underclasses, or when upper classes migrate to new areas, mankind evolves rapidly; and because morality increases and impulsivity decreases and time preference lengthens with intelligence, our only choice between Brazil on one end and Star Trek on the other in a populated planet is this one.( Superior intelligence does not breed superior ambition or aggression. )

    As far as I know aggression defeats intelligence and Huntington missed that observation.

    Hegel was wrong as well – heroism and by consequence, sovereignty, jury and truth telling are the cause of western rates of development.

    Hiroshi: In my universe, good and evil are not technical terms. Imagine a universe in which no human beings exist. In that universe there is neither good nor evil: everything is technical and neutral. Good and evil can exist only when human beings exist. Good and evil become important terms when human beings decides their mode of being or make “judgment” in the sense of Hannah Arendt. (See my short essay above on Arendt’s conception of judging)

    7 hrs · Like

    Curt: Sorry, I meant ‘technical’ in the sense of objective. And objective in the sense of independent of introspection. I also use the term ‘decidable’, appropriated from mathematics, to avoid the loading on the term ‘judgement’. The difference being that introspection and therefore subjectivity is present in judgement, and not present in decidability. So good and evil are decidable propositions.

    In this sequence: One can be lax. One an err. One can privatize. One can engage in predation. One can engage in destruction without benefit to the self. One can engage in destruction that produces a chain of destructive externalities. The last is my definition of ‘evil’ and immoral.

    If on the other hand, one warrants defense against externalities (takes all possible known precautions), in order to create a chain of beneficial externalities – then this is ‘good’ and moral.

    The concepts of good and evil, judgement, justice, and morality, have been inherited from our ancient past and remain loaded with introspective demands, because of our failure to articulate the necessary and sufficient properties of cooperation. But the necessary and sufficient properties of cooperation are no longer unknown but trivial.

    What remains is the analysis of strategies. Western (scientific) Truth, Anglo-Jewish Political Correctness, Russian-Jewish Postmodernism, Chinese Delay-Deceit, Hindu Avoidance, and Muslim Denial and rebellion. Each is a strategy for group persistence.

    In the context of this question, the positive externalities of improving the genome, and creating supermen – or at least, highly intelligent, attractive (symmetrical) and with a moral bias, is hard to argue with.

    This technology exists already. We do it by assortative mating. We call it ‘castes’ or ‘classes’. A race to the top (selective breeding) has always produced better ends than a race to the bottom (through excess reproduction of the lower classes).

    So my question is instead the non-intuitive: we are now engaged in an experiment called ‘redistribution’ which increases the rates of the lower classes, and suppresses the rates of the middle classes, and has isolated our upper classes. This experiment has evolved (through advocacy of democracy under the ‘enlightenmemt’) into a dysgenic disaster that one can easily call ‘evil’, and it’s promotors ‘evil’ as well, by the very technical criterion I proposed above. Society has become ordered to value a negative by use of a ‘judgement’ that democracy is a good, when the consequences are an evil.

    So why is it not beneficial to reorder society around a judgement that improves man, rather than devolves him?

    I would much rather have a public debate, and a ‘judgement’ about how to handle the improvement of man, than the current debate about how to degenerate him.

    So in this sense, suppressing this technology is to persist an evil.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    ( Eli Harman: add this to the weapons cache)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-23 03:03:00 UTC

  • THE CHALLENGE OF USING PROPERTARIANISM’S TESTIMONIAL TRUTH: ‘TESTIFIABLE’, ‘TRUT

    THE CHALLENGE OF USING PROPERTARIANISM’S TESTIMONIAL TRUTH: ‘TESTIFIABLE’, ‘TRUTHFUL’ AND ‘SCIENTIFIC’ ARE TAUTOLOGICAL TERMS.

    I don’t use the criticism ‘unscientific’ because my definition of that term is terribly precise and not close enough to the vernacular to convey the same meaning.

    I use the terms ‘truthful’ and ‘untruthful’ – after a great deal of experimentation – to refer to scientific and unscientific at this greater level of precision, where the terms ‘scientific’ and ‘truthful’ are tautological.

    Unfortunately, that definition of scientific and truthful presents argumentative hurdle that prevents people from making meaningful (allegorical), pseudo-moral (normative), rational (internally consistent), logical (non operational), macro-economic (pseudoscientific) arguments that are not necessarily false in their entirety, but are necessarily not true in their entirety.

    Which is terribly frustrating, because meaning (association) is something we so desperately want and need.

    Imagine how christians felt when they were chastised for unscientific argument – when that meant ‘unempirical’. That is how rationalists feel for being chastised for using ‘untruthful’ when that means ‘non-operational’ (non-existential) and ‘unwarrantied’ (warrantied by criticism against imaginary content).

    Rationalism – in the Kantian and continental sense – has lost all standing. It was invented as a means of deceit, and remains a means of deceit. Philosophy independent of truthfulness – just as claims of science without truthfulness – is an exceptional means of conducting deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-09 01:32:00 UTC

  • CREATIVITY : ITS AUTISM – AND IT ISNT A DISEASE ITS AN ADAPTATION New research p

    CREATIVITY : ITS AUTISM – AND IT ISNT A DISEASE ITS AN ADAPTATION

    New research provides the first physiological evidence that real-world creativity may be associated with a reduced ability to filter “irrelevant” sensory information.

    The literary great Marcel Proust wore ear-stoppers because he was unable to filter out irrelevant noise — and lined his bedroom with cork to attenuate sound.

    Now new Northwestern University research suggests why the inability to shut out competing sensory information while focusing on the creative project at hand might have been so acute for geniuses such as Proust, Franz Kafka, Charles Darwin, Anton Chekhov and many others.

    The Northwestern research provides the first physiological evidence that real-world creativity may be associated with a reduced ability to filter “irrelevant” sensory information.

    The research suggests that some people are more affected by the daily bombardment of sensory information — or have “leakier” sensory filters.

    “Leaky” sensory gating, the propensity to filter out “irrelevant” sensory information, happens early, and involuntarily, in brain processing and may help people integrate ideas that are outside of the focus of attention, leading to creativity in the real world, said Darya Zabelina, lead author of the study, calling the finding “impressive.”

    The researchers investigated specific neural markers of a very early form of attention, namely sensory gating, indexed by P50 ERP, the neurophysiological response that occurs 50 ms (milliseconds) after stimulus onset, and how it relates to two measures of creativity: divergent thinking and real-world creative achievement.

    In the study, approximately 100 participants reported their achievements in creative domains via Creative Achievement Questionnaire, as well as performed a test of divergent thinking, generally considered to be a laboratory test of creative cognition. On this test participants were asked to provide as many answers as they could to several unlikely scenarios, within a limited amount of time. The number and the novelty of participants’ responses comprised the divergent thinking score. As a result, the researchers had two different measures of creativity: a number of peoples’ real-world creative achievements and a laboratory measure of divergent thinking.

    Divergent thinking tests are timed laboratory measures of creative cognition, in which participants produce numerous responses within a limited time. In the study, divergent thinking correlated with academic test scores and selective sensory gating — an increased ability to filter compared to lower divergent thinkers.

    In direct contrast, real-world creative achievement was associated with leaky sensory processing — or a reduced ability to screen or inhibit stimuli from conscious awareness. This shows that these creativity measures are sensitive to different forms of sensory gating. Divergent thinking does contribute to creativity, but appears to be separate from the process of creative thinking that is associated with the leaky sensory filter.

    The study suggests that creative people with “leaky” sensory gating may have a propensity to deploy attention over a wider focus or a larger range of stimuli.

    “If funneled in the right direction, these sensitivities can make life more rich and meaningful, giving experiences more subtlety,” said Zabelina, a Ph.D. candidate in psychology at Northwestern.

    But the downsides to such sensory distraction have been well noted by some of the world’s most creative thinkers.

    One of the most influential novelists of the 20th century, Kafka once said, “I need solitude for my writing; not ‘like a hermit’ — that wouldn’t be enough — but like a dead man.” Darwin, Chekhov and Johan Goethe also strongly lamented the distracting nature of noise.

    The study cannot yet determine whether reduced sensory gating is a stable trait, or if creative achievers can modulate their sensory processing depending on task demands.

    Story Source:

    The above story is based on materials provided by Northwestern University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

    Journal Reference:

    Darya L. Zabelina, Daniel O’Leary, Narun Pornpattananangkul, Robin Nusslock, Mark Beeman. Creativity and sensory gating indexed by the P50: Selective versus leaky sensory gating in divergent thinkers and creative achievers.Neuropsychologia, 2015; 69: 77 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.034

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-08 00:56:00 UTC

  • MORE ON KANT Or let me put it another way: Science evolved to require operationa

    MORE ON KANT

    Or let me put it another way:

    Science evolved to require operational definitions in the proposition of evidence and theory. The purpose of empirical argument is to make it extremely difficult to err, bias or deceive.

    Philosophy by contrast is an extremely useful means of deception by analogy, loading, framing, overloading, suggestion. Kant invented a new means of conducting the same deception that was possible under babylonian-judeo-christian mysticism, by rational means, and in doing so created the most successful series of rationalists and pseudoscientists the world has ever known.

    So, if we are to say, we gained enlightenment, we have to ask, whether Kant’s invention of a new means of deceit – one that persists today – was in fact “enlightening”. Or whether, like the other counter-enlightenment figures, he was merely inventing an alternative means of deceit, even more sophisticated than that of Abraham and Zoroaster.

    So by such standards, he was a member of the enlightenment period, he was a liberal in the classical (upper middle class) sense, but not in the modern proletarian sense, and he was not enlightened in any sense other than replacing mysticism with rationalism.

    The germans were right about the nature of man, and the anglos were wrong about the nature of man. The British were right that common law and empiricism were critical defenses against deceit and abuse, and the germans were wrong that rational philosophy could replace the church. (Which is why the European right still fails.) The jewish philosophers were both wrong about the nature of man AND wrong about the adoption of german rationalism as justification for the preservation of separatism.

    Unfortunately, everyone was insufficiently correct.

    And because of Marx and Keynes, we are starting to seriously pay for it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-04 10:17:00 UTC

  • KANT AN ENLIGHTENMENT LIBERAL? > Curt Doolittle If you consider the enlightenmen

    http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.htmlWAS KANT AN ENLIGHTENMENT LIBERAL?

    > Curt Doolittle

    If you consider the enlightenment an effort to escape the church and mysticism once again, then perhaps.

    If you consider the enlightenment a time period, then maybe.

    If you consider the enlightenment the restoration of scientific or empirical thought after Justinian’s initiation of suppression of it, then no – he is a member of the counter enlightenment.

    We tend to treat the anglo, German, French and Jewish enlightenment programs as different approaches to the advent of literacy and prosperity, and the admission of cultural failure after the European wars, and/or escaping the church.

    But the French, German, and Jewish efforts were just as much a reaction to anglo island empiricism as they were to the church, wars, literacy and prosperity.

    As human beings we like ideal types and single axis of causation.

    But that desire is merely one of our many cognitive biases.

    It reduces the cost of contemplating complex things.

    But truth, if we desire it, is not bounded by the pragmatism of costs.

    Just the opposite.

    >Curt Doolittle

    (Sorry Stephen. Didn’t realize you were the author of the original post. )

    >Shane Young

    Yes. Kant is an Enlightened Liberal. However, it’s important to understand that “Enlightened” is not synonymous with “Liberal”. If it were, the question becomes: “Was Kant an Enlightened enlightened or a Liberal liberal?”

    1 hr · Edited · Like

    >Curt Doolittle

    Shane: Requires definition of both enlightened and liberal. Does liberal mean universalist, or simply that the franchise should be extended? If the franchise should be extended, to what extent. Does universalist mean unscientific (non-correspondent with reality)?

    Kant’s statements above, are not universalist. They are limitations on enfranchisement.

    An anglo Classical Liberal wanted to enfranchise all property owners.

    That was an easy point of demarcation.

    >Shane Young

    Curt: Ad Fontes.

    http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html

    Kant. What is Enlightenment

    Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one’s own mind without another’s g…

    COLUMBIA.EDU

    >Curt Doolittle

    Yes, well, why don’t we look for an NPV, rather than Kant to supply his own circular definition. It’s not like he he was giving us a scientific analysis. He was doing the opposite: looking for an excuse to preserve authority.

    >Shane Young

    I take Kant for his word.

    >Curt Doolittle

    OK. But that doesn’t have much to do with the question.

    Was he an enlightenment liberal? To answer that question requires that we have definitions of The Enlightenment (not ‘personal enlightenment’) and of ‘liberal’. It’s true that the term enlightenment evolved in response to the french use of it, which in turn was a reference to Kant’s essay, but the scholars who used and still use the term, refer to the time period and the SET of philosophers across all of Europe who transformed the discourse on ‘the good’ away from middle-age mystical-metaphor, and returned it to its origins in western correspondence with reality, and individualism.

    Now when we get to the term ‘liberal’ the term was intentionally appropriated and abused at several stages. As far as I know, the original term referred to extending the franchise, even if the term ‘liberty’ in its original meaning meant the preservation of local law and custom. The purpose of the use of the term was propaganda: that the emergent middle class that now was more economically important than the landed aristocracy, was justified in taking political power from that aristocracy, while preserving aristocratic culture themselves by adopting it.

    This term was later extended to all classes, and the general term equality.

    Then later, to that of universalism.

    “Meaning” (an analogy) is quite different from “a sequence of operations” (a name). The latter exists and the former does not. Or more precisely, the latter is informationally independent, while the former is loaded and fungible.

    >Shane Young

    Historically, The Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Reason are not equal. From this perspective, there is little difference between the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment.

    >Shane Young

    To clarify, Enlightenment (notice Cap) is synonymous with Germano-mysticism. In a Germano-enlightened culture, one is free to be an authoritarian mystic i.e. an Enlightened Liberal. One could say, it is one’s Duty to act as such.

    >Curt Doolittle

    Exactly, just as mystical analogy(meaningful), rationalism(internally consistent), empirical (externally correspondent), and operational (existentially possible sequence) are not equal – in the beginning of that sequence is largely imaginary, and the end of that sequence prohibits the imaginary and depends entirely on the existential.

    So again, the categories by which we attach meaningful names to these things are one thing (an effort at communication by analogy) and the categories of necessary operational properties and causal relations are something else.

    Which is why this matter is one of constant debate:

    The difference between the experience of meaning, the internal consistency of our terms, the external correspondence of those terms, and the operational possibility that such events could have occurred.

    The French, German and Jewish enlightenments were reactions as much to the Anglo Empirical enlightenment as they were to the opportunity to displace the church and justify and secure political power from the aristocracy.

    They wanted to secure the power just as the island-dwelling British had done. But since they were ether landed peoples (french catholic and german protestant) or diasporc (jewish) they could not adopt anglo empirical and commercial universalism without preserving authority. Because if they did, they would lose group cohesion – they would lose local moral authority of their traditions ,and therefore control over one another as a competitor to other groups. They had no ocean to protect them.

    Hence why americans Canadians and australians are the world advocates of universalism: they carry with them the anglo island tradition into sparsely populated territories.

    And as population has increased, the friction between groups of dissimilar interests that affected Europe, now has started to affect america and Canada.. with Austraila lagging behind.

    All verbal argument is justification of group evolutionary strategy, or individual reproductive strategy.

    Science is not necessarily advantageous.

    That is why the french, germans and jews rebelled against empiricism in the age of enlightenment.

    To preserve their groups.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-04 10:02:00 UTC

  • CONSILIENCE OF GENIUS “It is an interesting phenomenon,that many inventions have

    http://archive.org/stream/jstor-2142320/2142320_djvu.txtTHE CONSILIENCE OF GENIUS

    “It is an interesting phenomenon,that many inventions have been made two or more times by different inventors, each working without knowledge of the other’s research.”

    JSTOR ARTICLE “ARE INVENTIONS INEVITABLE?”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-02 20:16:00 UTC

  • SO, I HAVE PROVIDED THE SOLUTION TO E.O. WILSON’S THEORY of CONSILIENCE. Science

    SO, I HAVE PROVIDED THE SOLUTION TO E.O. WILSON’S THEORY of CONSILIENCE.

    Science is the discipline of truth telling.

    And I have answered why science and morality were separated at birth.

    Truth telling in politics. Truth Telling in Morality.

    The problem of decidability.

    Propertarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-02 19:56:00 UTC

  • Skye Stewart Do you have any advice about this debate? ” Science Wars”

    Skye Stewart Do you have any advice about this debate?

    ” Science Wars”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-26 05:29:00 UTC