Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • UNDERSTANDING THE WORDS OF GOD, AND THE MEANING OF THOSE WORDS ARE TWO DIFFERENT

    UNDERSTANDING THE WORDS OF GOD, AND THE MEANING OF THOSE WORDS ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

    FWIW: There is a great difference between understanding the words of Men of God as they write and speak them, and understanding the words of God as he wrote them with the universe. Gods words are perfect, they are consistent, they are comprehensible with enough effort. But they are not simple. Once we understand God’s words, we must then understand God’s meaning. Understanding God’s meaning has been the struggle for men. And men have always been poor interpreters and translators of the divine. Today we understand Gods language better than ever before. But we understand God’s meaning perhaps less than before. And there are those who intentionally lie and deceive, precisely because Gods words are so difficult for man to interpret and translate. We live in a world constructed largely of lies on the one hand. And on the other, I am not sure we will like the meaning of the words of God once we understand them better. Why? Because god made man and woman, young and old, weak and strong, beautiful and not, rich and poor, ill and hale, dim and wise, ignorant and educated. He created a word that is only plentiful if we exist in small numbers. He created a universe which is vast, but that is dangerous to man. He gave us the ability to reason, but not wisdom and character. He gave us the ability to cooperate, but to be selfish. He gave us kindness and care, or the ability to punish and kill. So he gave us tools. But he requires that we cooperate in vast numbers, if we are to earn our way to sit beside him. The One Law he gave us to do so is Natural Law. That which we call ‘reciprocity’. But unless we save all of us, we may not save any of us. And it is this uncomfortable truth we must face: God allowed us to fail. And only together can we succeed. And this is the meaning of the existence of Natural Law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-04 08:17:00 UTC

  • 1 – THE TRUTH OF THE ARISTOCRACY 2 – THE LIE OF THE CONSERVATIVES 3 – THE FRAUD

    1 – THE TRUTH OF THE ARISTOCRACY

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155191165772264

    2 – THE LIE OF THE CONSERVATIVES

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155191110462264

    3 – THE FRAUD OF THE PROGRESSIVES

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10155191031192264

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 15:41:00 UTC

  • You see. I made a tool. A weapon. Intellectual weaponry. How you use that weapon

    You see. I made a tool. A weapon. Intellectual weaponry. How you use that weapon is up to you. And you will see, that after people follow me for a while, and begin to understand how to use that tool, they are don’t act like sycophants at all. They may sound very similar, but they argue using this tool for different purposes in different frames, to pursue different tactics. And this is what I want. It’s like doing accounting. You can do propertarian accounting just as you can do monetary accounting. You can measure the sums of many different kinds of things and reduce it to some statement of gain or loss, or some change in the balance sheet. That’s what properatrianism lets you do.

    Now, in ADDITION to propertarianism and testimonialism, I ALSO advocate for the use of violence to restore sovereignty, markets in everything, and the production of AGENCY, so that we conduct TRANSCENDENCE of mankind over the centuries – and exit this ball of wet rock.

    And I know its easy to confuse the science with the preference.

    But they are independent things. You can construct a governmetn of any kind that you want to using propertarianism and testimonialism and natural law – as long as you do it truthfully.

    I just advocate the restoration of my people to our position as the drivers of innovation for humanity in the ancient and modern worlds.

    But I don’t conflate the science with the preference.

    Everyone who follows me does. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 12:54:00 UTC

  • THE EPIPHANY AND THE BLOODSHED WE WILL LOOSE Once you experience the epiphany th

    THE EPIPHANY AND THE BLOODSHED WE WILL LOOSE

    Once you experience the epiphany that we live in an age of largely pseudoscientific discourse, changing only the terms from supernatural, to moral, to rational, and now to pseudoscientific, your understanding of the world will change so dramatically that you may (as I have) experience profound anger at those who invented and perpetuated the new pseudoscientific religion we are all the victims of – we are the wage and credit slaves of pseudoscience rather than religion.

    We replaced the rule of law reducible to experience that we can all judge, and the payment of taxes we can all observe with rule of finance and credit which is not – and is nothing but a vehicle for fraud.

    In other words -and get ready for this to shock you – we replaced the mysticism of religion with the promise of afterlife in exchange for hard labor on behalf of others in the now, for the promise of retirement and the abandonment of want in our later lives in exchange for hard labor on behalf of others in the now.

    We transitioned from the treatment of money and credit as beneath those who rule, and limited by rule of law, and moral hazard, and outsourcing it to ‘lower people of lesser character’, to abandoning rule of law that we can sense, perceive, and taxes we can sense and percieve, to the expropriation of everything we produce by those who use our inability to sense and percieve to defraud us.

    There is no secret to fiat money – it is merely shares in the corporation of the commons we call ‘the state’. There is no reason to require third parties to distribute shares – and there never was. And with the advent of fiat money (paper shares), credit money (promises of future paper shares), and digital money (the elimination of the need for paper to represent the shares) there is no reason whatsoever to preserve the ‘trick’ of making consumers pay for access to their own shares (as common shareholders) rather than forcing business, industry, banking, and finance, as well as the state, to fight with each other in order to obtain some portion of them.

    Moreover, there is no reason any of this process is not fully governable by rule of law, independent of human discretion, and forbidden by teh constitution, defended by the courts, and enforced by militia, and the army if necessary. And therefore fully transparent and free of deceit and parasitism upon the people.

    We will need to draw a lot of blood.

    Do a lot of killing.

    Do a lot of burning.

    And enact a few legislative changes.

    But in the end, the people who lie cheat and steal, will be deprived of that opportunity. And those who still live after our cleansing of their kind, will have to search for other useful means of surviving under the rule of natural law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 10:54:00 UTC

  • ON PROPERTARIANISM’S COMMENSURABILITY OF MEANING —“Curt: Why is linguistic com

    ON PROPERTARIANISM’S COMMENSURABILITY OF MEANING

    —“Curt: Why is linguistic commensurability most pertinent empirically? Is their evidence to suggest so or is this still purely hypothetical?”— Rik

    Curt Doolittle

    Well, let us take your sentence as an example:

    —“Why is linguistic commensurability most pertinent empirically?”—

    Translated:

    Why do people who desire to communicate and cooperate need the same, and therefore commensurable, definitions if they are to report upon their observations if we are to report without ignorance, error, bias, and deceit?

    Do ya see what I did there? I took all the words that LOOKED like you (people) understood what they mean, and I replaced them with what they mean in the consistent grammar of acting. Once I did that then the question answers itself.

    The vast majority of our arguments in modernity can be reduced to poetry using pseudoscientific rather than moral, literary, or mythological verse.

    I have tried to repair that fact with propertarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 10:35:00 UTC

  • (math) —“Curt: Someone said:”The closest you can get to objective truth is mat

    (math)

    —“Curt: Someone said:”The closest you can get to objective truth is maths, which is apriori, analytic and not empirical whatsoever” Is this a lie? I’m having difficulties understanding that since maths is axiomatic.”—

    This is one of the great intellectual problems that we must deal with. And it’s as old as the Greeks at least. It is better to say, that if you can describe something in *certain mathematical equations* then you have the lowest chance of misinterpretation of description.

    However, as we see in statistics daily, economics weekly, and physics monthly, mathematics is a tool limited to describing certain things. It does not for example, describe causality or sequence. And it can be misused more easily than used.

    Mathematics depends upon constant categories and constant relations, at scale independence. And so it is good for expression of deterministic phenomenon. However, in economics and in sentience, we have only inconstant categories, and fungible relations. We can think of it this way: the physical world can’t decide to change categories and relations; we can cause changes in the physical world if we want at some cost or other. The economic world can change categories and relations, but at some cost and effort; and the sentient world can change categories and relations with only exposure to information, and very near zero cost to the individual, but at very, very, very high cost to groups.

    This does not mean we cannot make true statements about economics at some degree of precision. Just as we cannot make true statements about subatomic world yet beyond some degree of precision. The reason being that at the subatomic level, and in the economic and sentient levels, the causal density is so high and categorical variation so high that mathematics has proven little use in direct prediction of consequences – and almost none at all. At the sentient level we have no way at all of expressing in mathematical terms the information necessary to change state.

    What we have seen is that there is a point at which we can model sufficient causal density of systems that we can observe intermediary phenomenon (patterns) that assist us in defining limits of consequent patterns (ends we want to observe). So we may not be able to predict the location of molecules of gas, prices of a good at a location, or the information necessary to form an idea. But that does not mean that we cannot make truthful (parsimonious and descriptive) statements about those phenomenon.

    And this is the current limit of our understanding of what we may be able to do with mathematics. In other words, while there may be an unmeasurable and unpredictable set of end states due to causal density and rapid heuristics that change our actions or associations, it appears that whatever limits humans are limited by, just as whatever limits the universe is limited by, cause patterns that appear, and these patterns may in fact assist us in predicting end states.

    The problem, as usual, will be at some point, the information necessary to perform a calculation is equal to reality itself.

    So, the response to your friend is that math is good at measuring simple things, that does not mean all things that we need measure are simple.

    Math works because it is trivial. But we have, until the 1800’s only used it to measure trivial things.

    We are just beginning to touch upon complicated things.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 15:48:00 UTC

  • QUARTERLY REPEAT: CURT, WHAT PHILOSOPHERS ARE WORTH READING REALLY? NONE. BUT IF

    QUARTERLY REPEAT: CURT, WHAT PHILOSOPHERS ARE WORTH READING REALLY? NONE. BUT IF YOU MUST….

    —“Curt: Which philosophers are worth reading? I take it Hume, Newton and Aristotle are among the ones who avoided engaging in falsehoods?— Alex

    You know, to be honest, I don’t think much of philosophers other than to get a feel for how the history of thought evolved into science.

    I would suggest reading about philosophers rather than philosophers themselves. I would rather someone read the SEP than any given philosopher. (Seriously. Encyclopedias prevent you from anchoring. )

    That said, it is hard to say no to:

    1 – Aristotle/Aurelius,

    2 – Machiavelli/Durkheim/Pareto/Hayek,

    3 – Bacon/Locke/Smith/Hume/Jefferson,

    4 – Galileo/Newton/Darwin/Maxwell.

    5 – The Greek tragedies, Dostoyevsky, Checkov, and Nietzche.

    6 – The Greek and Roman myths, the whole corpus of Christiandom’s myths that survived christianity as folk myths of the hearth. And perhaps most importantly homer, and the entire european (including Russian) great myths that evolved from that set of myths.

    And whichever of my followers had the genius bit to add, that it is only through tragedy that we can communicate to all classes, is something that I think bears knowing.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 15:19:00 UTC

  • RACE, CULTURE, AND CLASSISM I struggle to speak the truth. But I do not attempt

    RACE, CULTURE, AND CLASSISM

    I struggle to speak the truth. But I do not attempt to blame others for the failing of my people to defend against them any more than I blame my people for conquering inferior peoples around the world – or the many generations of people who have conquered and even exterminated others, for millions of years before them.

    LESSON: Adapt or Die.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-01 17:18:00 UTC

  • YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH PROPERTARIANISM – HONEST OR NOT? Over the past six months

    YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH PROPERTARIANISM – HONEST OR NOT?

    Over the past six months to a year, I have seen any number of people try to justify their anchoring philosophy (what they favor) using propertarianism. Or rather, to make propertarianism ‘fit’ their model. ( Why? (a) yesterday on christianity, (b) recently on libertarianism, (c) previously on anarcho capitalism. (d) repeatedly on various forms of literary reference. ) Usually because you want to justify some prior, or satisfy a moral intuition.

    However, it works the other way around. Although the confusion is understandable.

    Your model and values are EXPLAINABLE by propertarianism, just as ALL MODELS are explainable by propertarianism. Thats the point. You can not only explain all thought, all ethics and morals, all norms and sociology, all economics and politics, and all group evolutionary strategies – but you can develop TRUTHFUL constitutions and conduct truthful law to design and operate those social orders – no matter what they are.

    However, because I explain western civilization, advocate a return to natural aristocracy, multi-house production of commons, and strict natural law; and because I want to end the century of pseudoscience and deceit; and because I state it will require violence to restore western civilization using these techniques, this tends to cause people to conflate the SCIENCE of natural law, with the APPLICATION of natural law to the the restoration and reformation of Aristocratic Egalitarianism of our past.

    You can write a natural law (scientific) constitution and develop any familial, normative, economic, and political order that you want to assuming it can survive your assumptions about human nature, and you have the economic wherewithal to implement your institutions.

    You can then justify that order scientifically, rationally, morally, religiously, or spiritually in whatever form of narrative literature that you desire to.

    You can explain, in propertarian terms what your preferred familial, normative, economic and political order claimed in the past, no matter what language it did so in. You can explain many of your favorite parables, lessons, sayings, and givens. You can use it to correct the narrative of the past if you desire to. But…. you cannot escape the fact that propertarianism will expose the errors, deceptions, excuses, and parasitism that you think is ‘good’. And it will force you, if you have any intellectual honesty whatsoever, to accept that your order is not so much ‘good’, as a portfolio of goods, practicalities, inadequacies, and bads.

    Why? Because human existence requires we defeat the natural entropy of the universe through cooperation. But that regardless of the productivity of our cooperation, our reproductive strategies if untamed ( or not weaponized ) result in hitting man’s malthusian limits, and therefore we all prey upon someone or other, or some group or other’s ambitions, even if we do not prey upon their investments other than their reproductive strategy.

    Ergo: you must make a choice at some point to favor dysgenia or eugenia. Because that is the final question of decidability.

    The first question of philosophy is why do i not commit suicide?

    The first question of ethics and politics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff?

    The last question of ethics and politics is eugenia or dysgenia.

    But what I suspect, is that few of us possess the intellectual honesty to (a) admit our strategies are not goods but preferences, (b) decide what we would trade with those having different strategies to obtain our preference – that they would want in exchange. (c) decide the limit of trade as eugenic or dysgenic. (d) and to decide whether if we abandon trade if we are willing and able to resort to flight (not any longer) or to fight.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-01 16:42:00 UTC

  • ON FAITH(RELIGION) VS TRUTH(LAW) An Open Letter To Traditionalists (from elsewhe

    ON FAITH(RELIGION) VS TRUTH(LAW)

    An Open Letter To Traditionalists

    (from elsewhere)(important)

    1) I was raised a catholic, and identify with the pre-vatican ii church. I consider vatican ii a disaster. I consider the chair of st peter empty. I consider the current pope a false pope.

    2) I write for an audience in the language that they can understand. It does not mean I cannot write for different audiences, in their languages – languages that they will understand. The problem in talking to traditionalists is one that is common, and we just saw in the debate between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris: the difference between conflationary, and coherent truth that combines the good, spirit, literature, and meaning, with the true regardless of existential limits, – and deflationary, descriptive truth within existential limits and free of judgements spirit, literature, and goodness. However, I must explain the importance of that difference.

    2) My understanding is that the spiritual experience is necessary and that the church provided it. That this experience can be provided to many by Ritual(Repetition), by Action-Discipline (Stoicism), by Disconnected Mental Discipline(Mindfulness) and by Prayer and Contemplation (language). That the church and temple experience is necessary for the experience and training in sacredness (emotional security). That the literary experience is necessary for our envisioning of possibilities(Intellectual security). That the scientific experience is necessary for the cooperation of men in transforming the universe for our use (practical security). And that the juridical experience is necessary for the resolution of our disputes – (security of life, property, family and society). And that the military experience is necessary for all security – particularly for men. And that in the west, we developed all of these languages and traditions to provide for all those needs.

    3) I specialize in Action: the practical (scientific), Juridical (Life and Property), and Military (civilization itself). I do not specialize Experience: in the spiritual, the sacred, or the literary. There are reasons for this division of specialization. They are good reasons: competition keeps us free of corruption of spirit, sacred, and literary that we have seen in some civilizations, and the corruption of science, justice, and violence in other civilizations …. and that we have seen in christian civilization since the lies of Boaz, Freud, Marx, and Frankfurt, and the lies of the French and the Postmodernists who tried to recreate a pseudo-scientific religion, were industrialized by mainstream media for the profit of business, finance, academy, politician and bureaucracy at the expense of soul, individual, family, civilization, law, and religion so carefully constructed by the church over millennia. So I work at deconflating the experiential and the actionable because the conflation of the experiential and the actionable, the good and the true, the ideal and the possible, were the means by which our church and our civilization was undermined – by intent, and continues to this day.

    This is a more technical way of saying that faith teaches the golden rule, and law the silver rule.

    4) There are many degrees of decidability. Between one feeling and another. Between a preference and another. Between one parable and another. Between that which is reasonable (Understandable) and another. Between that which is rational (non contradictory) and another. Between that which is more correspondent with reality and that which is less so. Between that which is existentially possible (operational) and that which is not. Between that which is economically possible (tolerable) and that which is not. Between that which is voluntary and that which is not. Between that which produces beneficial unintended consequences, and that which does not.

    But principally, we divide these methods into Spiritual, Mythical, literary, traditional, moral, reasonable, rational, logical, empirical, and scientific. When we have a great deal of information we may use the scientific. When we are highly uncertain, we rely on the moral, traditional literary, mythical, and spiritual. The more information we possess the more reason (calculation), the less we possess the more intuition (spirit).

    We can identify an attempt at deception when a question may be answered by use of a method of decidability of greater precision because we have the information necessary to use that method of greater precision. Or when one attempts to use a method of more precise decidability, yet we lack the information to apply that method of decidability. We can create frauds either way.

    But we are mere mortals, we vary in ability, in education, in experience, and in mastery.

    This is a more technical way of saying that the world of the spirit belongs to God (Faith and Religion), and the world of action belongs to Caesar (Science and Law).

    5) So I teach ‘convergence’ -and that is, that we must – as humans – practice the spiritual, literary, conflationary, and meaningful to cooperate, and we must practice the actionable, descriptive, deflationary, and ‘true’ to resolve conflicts.

    And so I leave the ‘good’ for those who conflate, and I practice the ‘true’ for those of us, who, unfortunately, must resolve conflicts between people – provide restitution if possible, punishment if not, and death if necessary. And it is this convergence and competition that keeps the faith and the law uncorrupted. And it is the conflation of faith and law that corrupts both.

    This is a more technical way of saying that some of you wish to sit in safety at the right and hand of god, to do what might be done to create good: inform and advice. Some of us sit at the left and of god, to do what must be done: judge and punish, to end and prevent bad. Between possible goods and certain bads, we prevent each other’s corruption and do what Christendom has done best: build a world that the rest is in envy of.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-31 21:37:00 UTC