Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • THE CONUNDRUM OF GERMAN PHILOSOPHY The conundrum of German Philosophy is that it

    THE CONUNDRUM OF GERMAN PHILOSOPHY

    The conundrum of German Philosophy is that it uses the right message (truth and duty), uses the right method (moral literature), but engages in conflation (pseudo-rationalism).

    It’s exasperating.

    The anglos used the wrong message (equality), the right method (moral literature) and continued aristotelian deflation (science).

    But it does no good to say the wrong thing rightly, any more than it does good to say the right thing wrongly.

    Then we get to the jews and the french who say the wrong thing wrongly.

    It’s amazing that the enlightenment survived even in its current form.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-22 12:32:00 UTC

  • “What about Kierkegaard? He taught to the world the meaning of perspective!”—

    —“What about Kierkegaard? He taught to the world the meaning of perspective!”— A Friend

    If you want to read fantasy literature, read german philosophy. If you want to read truth, simply read science, law, and history.

    1) The works of Religion (pseudo-mythology – latin) (lies)

    2) The works of Platonism (pseudo-rationalism – german and french) (ideals) (postmodernists)

    3) The works of Frauds (pseudoscience – Jewish) (Frauds) (freud, marx, boaz, frankfurt school)

    4) The works of Literature (analogy – the works of the anglo historians and russian literature) (analogies)

    5) The works of History, Law, Science ( description – the works of anglos and aristotelians.) (truth)

    Roughly speaking, I”ve just described each standard deviation in iQ

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-22 12:25:00 UTC

  • HANDLING HOSTILE DISCOURSE WITH ONE QUESTION —“You don’t let the enemy dictate

    HANDLING HOSTILE DISCOURSE WITH ONE QUESTION

    —“You don’t let the enemy dictate the terms of the debate. You just kill them.”— Jerrick Harald

    There exists only one form debate: perfect reciprocity. All the rest is negotiation until we reach a point of perfect reciprocity. If you are not engaging in perfect reciprocity, then you are engaging in negotiation. In mere negotiation we are outside of reciprocity, and therefore violence, fraud, cooperation, avoidance, and boycott are all on the table.

    Always ask “Are we are engaged in a debate, wherein we speak cooperatively with perfect reciprocity? Or are we engaged in a negotiation in which we attempting to determine whether we may cooperate? Or are we engaged in threatening, to determine whether we will engage in violence?”

    “OK, so you are threatening me, right? Then I will respond with violence.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-22 12:07:00 UTC

  • QUANTUM PHYSICS FAITH, PLATONISM, OBSCURING THE OBVIOUS (from elsewhere) 1) “Phe

    QUANTUM PHYSICS FAITH, PLATONISM, OBSCURING THE OBVIOUS

    (from elsewhere)

    1) “Phenomena – or ‘states’- consist of Particles and Waves” Meaning excitations of a quantum energy field produce some particle (concentrated) effects and some wave (distributed) effects.

    2) “Quantum Physics Is Probabilistic” Meaning causal density is higher than we can determine with the limited scope of electromagnetic radiation.

    3) “Quantum Physics is Discrete” Meaning the total ELECTROMAGNETIC energy contained in a particular ELECTROMAGNETIC light field is an integer multiple of that energy.

    4) “Quantum Physics Is Non-Local” Meaning that the causal relationship between visible energy, invisible energy, and space time is not understood, and despite the rather obvious routes of investigation the physics community continues its use of platonism and magic and mathematical-ism, and then spreading this magical-nonsense language to the population.

    4) “Quantum Physics Is Not Magic” Meaning, that the profession, out of allegiance to the scientific method’s presumption that we leave all avenues of investigation open, has adopted the platonism of mathematics rather than simply stating the obvious: there is something fundamentally missing with our understanding of the universe, and it’s been patently obvious for a century now: the math doesn’t add up. It doesn’t add up because we are currently as blind to dark energy as we were to electromagnetism prior to Maxwell. In that sense, I don’t see einstein’s value anywhere as important as whomever the next Maxwell will be. And my presumption is that the energy and technology required to perform the tests necessary to conduct that line of inquiry is logarithmically more expensive than the entire scope of human history up until maxwell. (I am subconsciously worried that having produced an einstein and his efforts, we are obscuring a venue for the next Maxwell. This kind of impedimentary ignorance is common in our history.)

    ***All mathematical calculations are operationally definable, but all mathematical descriptions of phenomenon are merely correlative. We know only correlation of mathematical descriptions until we can determine causation: algorithms.***

    And we know causation only when we know the possible operations that produce the changes in state.

    We do not know enough about the non-electromagnetic spectrum (dark world) to determine its relationship with the electromatic (light world).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 11:35:00 UTC

  • CURT CAN YOU REDUCE YOUR PHILOSOPHY TO A SINGLE SENTENCE? first, that’s impossib

    CURT CAN YOU REDUCE YOUR PHILOSOPHY TO A SINGLE SENTENCE?

    first, that’s impossible. Ask aristotle to do the same., and the result is meaningless. However, I can perhaps provide short, summary that does a reasonable job, even if it represents only ten percent of the philosophical system:

    Because of the disproportionate rewards for cooperation, the good is reducible to the moral, and the moral is reducible to reciprocity, and the result of reciprocity leaves only markets for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary cooperation, free of negative externality possible for our survival, and therefore the purpose of familial, social, economic, political, and national organizations is the continuous production of institutional means by which we assist in reciprocal cooperation at ever increasing scales, without admitting failure by sacrificing reciprocity.

    However, since markets are empirical and meritocratic, for this state of affairs to be possible requires that we incrementally reduce the scale of the underclass through negative (hanging, imprisonment) or positive means (zero-child, single-child and zero immigration), as well as continuing the evolution of suppression of parasitism by the incremental discovery of ‘crimes’ via the common law, universal standing, universal coverage, by tests of reciprocity.

    It is this system that has led to the success of the west in the early black sea bronze age, the ancient mediterranean, and modern atlantic worlds, and its failure that led to the ‘halting’ of the west in the medieval world.

    Since western civilization is unique in developing this set of ideas and dragging humanity out of ignorance and poverty and disease, western civilization must preserve these meritocratic behaviors rather than succumb to the underclass populism of religion, postmodernism, pseudoscience, and consumerism – not just for our civlization, but for all mankind.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 09:56:00 UTC

  • Q: “CURT, HOW DO YOU HANDLE DEMANDS YOU DEFEND YOUR ARGUMENTS?” The economics of

    Q: “CURT, HOW DO YOU HANDLE DEMANDS YOU DEFEND YOUR ARGUMENTS?”

    The economics of answering questions. 😉

    1) if I think the person is asking an honest question and I can answer him without extraordinary effort, I do so.

    2) If I think the person is asking an honest question, but is being lazy by not doing the simple searches, I answer a bit snidely.

    3) If I think the person is asking an honest question but the cost of ‘helping’ that person is too high, I ignore it, or simply say so.

    4) If i think the person is challenging me, I state the truth: Truth survives criticism. It cannot be confirmed. One cannot, I cannot, defend a criticism against ignorance. One can only raise criticism if one possesses the knowledge to criticize. If one had the knowledge to criticize one would say so. If one asks for confirmation he shows (a) he is ignorant of the scientific method, (b) he lacks the knowledge to counter with an empirical or logical response showing how it cannot be true, or can be explained by more parsimonious statement, (c) he is really just imposing a cost on me by asking me to defend myself without offering a criticism to defend against. (d) therefore the individual is both incompetent, ignorant, and a liar.

    5) if includes ridicule, I see it as an attempt at deception by imposing a cost on me. I attack ridicule.Then I restate the central argument. I repeat the process of returning the insult and restating the central argument – each time with minor variations – as a means of ‘chanting’ the truth, thereby ‘using’ the platform the individual has given me to (a) demonstrate his dishonesty, ignorance, and incompetence, and (b) getting across my message thru repetition.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 09:33:00 UTC

  • Retweeted JayMan (@JayMan471): No. Because you should *never* trust scientists t

    Retweeted JayMan (@JayMan471):

    No. Because you should *never* trust scientists to interpret their data if you want to really know for yourself. https://t.co/QgOQZDKYXV

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-20 20:51:00 UTC

  • The truth is divisive. If it wasn’t, then we wouldn’t need it

    The truth is divisive. If it wasn’t, then we wouldn’t need it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-19 19:01:00 UTC

  • If you have to embed your wisdom in lies, pseudorationalism, or pseudoscience, h

    If you have to embed your wisdom in lies, pseudorationalism, or pseudoscience, how can you claim it is wisdom?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-19 14:13:00 UTC

  • TRUTHS, RELIEFS, DECEITS Philosophers create worlds with words. The question is

    TRUTHS, RELIEFS, DECEITS

    Philosophers create worlds with words. The question is whether they create TRUTHS that correspond with reality a reality we seek to defeat; RELIEFS that provide us with escape from a world we fail to defeat; or DECEITS, that provide us with a means of defeating man and preying upon others as a means of circumventing our inability to defeat reality.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-18 10:08:00 UTC