Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • James Augustus Berens Heaven’s Contract Let us sow the seeds of the Great Garden

    James Augustus Berens

    Heaven’s Contract

    Let us sow the seeds of the Great Garden with Truth—and nurture it with the blood of beasts.

    Will that we may steward our Great Garden to something more mighty, noble, and truthful than ourselves.

    And with its blessed fruits, will that we, too, become more mighty, more noble, more truthful, more beautiful, more godly.

    Let us will upon ourselves that heavenly contract—that we may transcend beast, man and human alike.

    Let our Great Garden stand as testimony to our own virtue. And let it serve as the extinguishable light of goodness—and that it may chase away the darkness.

    And let us be vigilant, with our brothers in arms, that it may never return again.

    BY FORCE OF TRUTH AND MIGHT, WE WILL TRANSCEND.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 17:18:00 UTC

  • (didn’t think I’d write that kinda’ thing, huh? Truth is what it is. It’s what w

    (didn’t think I’d write that kinda’ thing, huh? Truth is what it is. It’s what we do with the truth that demonstrates whether we are moral or immoral men. A man with no knowledge of immorality cannot claim he is a moral man – he lacks the choice. It is by acknoweldgeing the costs of moral actions that we demonstrate we are moral men rather than mere animals.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 13:51:00 UTC

  • WHICH Doolittle:Anglo-Empiricism, Hoppe:German-Rationalism, Moldbug:Jewish-Criti

    WHICH

    Doolittle:Anglo-Empiricism, Hoppe:German-Rationalism, Moldbug:Jewish-Critique. We bring our baggage with us. Our lenses through which we unconsciously ‘create’ our versions of history.

    Whig history follows the evolution of the west’s only meaningful cult: sovereign common law of european men: contractualism. The means of resolution between warriors.

    Technically speaking, Moldbug is stating jewish history: jewish class and history – a homogenous monopoly. he has conflated his monopoly mind with european deflationary history of aristocracy, church, and burgher. We do not practice monopoly in the west. We even have different languages for our classes.

    When we say ‘europeans practiced X habit” the classes gave priority to very different theories. the slave, serf, freeman, citizen, senator, and monarch, or their feudal equivalents, or their modern equivalents, all rely upon different narratives, making different arguments, and in the west often making them in different languages. I don’t quote the church because I know the church attempted (as far back as bede_ to create another monopoly of lies in the jewish model. But unfortunately they and the burgher who wrote all the propaganda. It is the law of the juridical/military caste, and the church that wrote for the underclass. But then as now, the underclass message is obtainable by all, the burgher language (philosophy) by may fewer, and the aristocratic message (juridical military) by the fewest of all. Which is unfortunate. Because men at least, for most of our history, lived a dual existence as members of the aristocratic military respectful of the peasant religious, while the burghers tried to gain respectability from each.

    I’m Aryan (military aristocracy) first, Philosophy(burgher) second, and christian (peasant) third. Or do you speak Semitic (jewish) monopoly universalism, or it’s byzantine equivalent?

    Can you look at your polytheistic belief system and identify the priorities you attach to each?

    It’s actually pretty difficult.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 12:15:00 UTC

  • a statistic that should not come as a surprise, the poll notes that 89 percent o

    http://www.thewrap.com/new-poll-says-president-trump-is-more-trusted-than-untruthful-news-media/—“It a statistic that should not come as a surprise, the poll notes that 89 percent of Republicans approve of Trump, while 81 percent of Democrats disapprove. According to the poll, Trump’s “failure to pass the 50 percent threshold” for approval is because of his standing among independents, a group in which 52 percent disapprove.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-09 21:38:00 UTC

  • um…. lets be clear. the Dunning Kruger effect occurs when one perceives that a

    um…. lets be clear. the Dunning Kruger effect occurs when one perceives that a little general knowledge of a subject allows one to made deductions in that subject matter. This turns out to be false. Meanwhile people who excel in a subject matter tend to be overly pessimistic about their knowledge because they understand the broad opportunity for error.

    Smart people (actually, just educated people) tend to make these errors more often then ordinary (uneducated ) people. For the simple reason that uneducated people give themselves the excuse of saying “well I don’t know enough about that”.

    Smart people simply say “I’m not sure I know very much about that”. or they say ‘I can hazard a guess but that’s the best I can do.” Thats how you tell someone is smart. lol

    What we see in specialists (economics in particular), is that expertise in one domain is not transferrable to another domain.

    What we see in ethics, morals, politics, economics, and group evolutionary strategy, is that EVERYONE over-estimates his opinion pretty much except the synthetic historians, since they are the only people who specialize in what man has done, rather than what they think he ought to, or what he wants to.

    The reason being that we have greater investment in ethics, morals politics etc, and greater investment in our specializations, that we do in other subject matter.

    Propertarianism and testimonialism make it much harder to be the victim of DK cognitive bias, becuase we have too many hurdles to overcome before we can say “yeah, this is a truth candidate”. It’s not that we are less biased, it is that it is just really hard to ‘do the operational math’ so to speak. Because if you cna’t do it you can’t claim you know it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-08 19:51:00 UTC

  • WE NEED A CHURCH, BUT ONE FREE OF LIES I see the church as desperately clinging

    WE NEED A CHURCH, BUT ONE FREE OF LIES

    I see the church as desperately clinging to middle eastern dogma instead of seizing the opportunity to teach a mixture of aryan transcendence, christian commercial ethics, and stoic and buddhist mental discipline. In my experience prayer can provide the same benefits as stoicism and buddhism but the problem is that it requires a lie. Whereas buddhism and stoicism do not require lies.

    I talk to god every day. You would not imagine how great an influence my god has on my life. While empirical, I am not (like my sister) a stoic. Instead, I practice prayer myself because it is what I know how to do well – but then, my concept of god is so esoteric it may not mean the same thing even if it fulfills the same function.

    I see no incompatibility between Aryanism and the church. Nor between our ancient nature worship and the church. I see a weakness in a religion without institutions (paganism). My preference is that the church reform FURTHER in favor of Aryanism than it did in the reformation. And further than the Germans tried to do with the second enlightenment in the 1800’s. Because we need a church that institutionalizes those values across eons and has no other purpose.

    For those who don’t understand, Aryanism refers to the initial value system that moved westward with the Kurgans (Yamnaya) and formed the uniqueness of western civilization: Personal Sovereignty. Truthful speech. Public heroism. Political(spiritual) Transcendence.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-08 17:29:00 UTC

  • You need a bit more of a lesson I think…. Because you’re stuck in a primitive:

    You need a bit more of a lesson I think…. Because you’re stuck in a primitive: justificationism.

    1. empirical = observable. In other words, to test against existential possibility in order to eliminate information supplied by imagination that is not present in observable reality.

    2. truth claims = we can make proof claims (justifications), but we cannot make truth claims, only claims of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. Even if we can performatively speak a truth we can never know that a more parsimonius version of the theory we utter is not yet possible unless we speak a tautology.

    3. yes, those observations from which we identify general rules without the necessity of further criticism are a special case of empirical observations that we are not so lucky to find a discount on the warranty due diligence against error, bias wishful thinking and deceit. like prime numbers or reductio arguments the a priori can occur. However, very few other than reductio statements can be used for the purposes of deduction without definition of their limits (I will happily give examples).

    4. I have not exempted my argument from its implications, I’ve merely stated that no means of expression in any formal language can possibly achieve what you have suggested. Just as the liars paradox is fallacy, any such statements are fallacious if we can (as I stated) appeal to additional knowledge outside of the statement itself. Ergo, we do not test logical statements abut reality by the limits of the operations of logical expression but by the appeal to correspondence with reality, the appeal to existential possibility in operational languge, the appeal to reciprocity in moral matters, and across all of these appeals, the definition of limits, and parsimony, and the observation of full accounting. In other words (and I realize this is hard for you to grasp) rational recursion is just an excuse to avoid informational discovery. In other words, an excuse for ignorance. Which is precisely why the medieval theologians and ancient lawyers invented the technique. (See Pilpul).

    There are these people called Popper, Kuhn, Tarski and Frege, and Kripke in language(allegorical-meaningful systems) – who almost got it right; as well as cantor, godel and turing who eventually got it right independent of language (operational-existential systems).

    If you were able to hold this discourse with me you would not have made the errors you made in the first place.

    If you search for the ability to speak truthful statements then you can follow me. If you are searching for excuses for your existing frames of reference using the arcane methods of reasoning you use, then you will not find much help here.

    I don’t do excuses.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-08 17:14:00 UTC

  • Just as literature claims only to be fantasy by which we can learn by analogy; R

    Just as literature claims only to be fantasy by which we can learn by analogy; Rational Philosophy claims to be that which it cannot be demonstrated (complete); and Theology claims to be that which is impossible to demonstrate (supernatural).

    As far as I can tell, pretty much all of philosophy proper is nonsense, wishful thinking, and deceit. The tradition broke between Supernatural Theology, Imaginary Platonism, and Demonstrated Aristotelianism -fairly early on.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-08 15:28:00 UTC

  • a) the a priori is but a special case of the empirical, and the empirical a spec

    a) the a priori is but a special case of the empirical, and the empirical a special case of the testimonial.

    (b) one does not define a general case by a special. that would require that we ignore information available in the general.

    (c) one of the great fallacies of all time is that a subset of terms can be used to define itself. The fact that you (and many others) posit such things is not much different from the intentional design people positing things after the discovery and expansion of evolution.

    Testimonially speaking, the record of history consists of DEMONSTRATED preferences, and the literary record consists of REPORTED, and undemonstrated preferences. The difference between demonstrated truths and reported lies.

    In other words, just as literature claims only to be fantasy by which we can learn by analogy; Rational Philosophy claims to be that which it cannot be demonstrated (complete); and Theology claims to be that which is impossible to demonstrate (supernatural).

    As far as I can tell, pretty much all of philosophy proper is nonsense, wishful thinking, and deceit. The tradition broke between Supernatural Theology, Imaginary Platonism, and Demonstrated Aristotelianism -fairly early on.

    There are no answers there. Only the record of errors.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-08 15:27:00 UTC

  • How can you miss the principle difference between progressive advocacy of deceit

    How can you miss the principle difference between progressive advocacy of deceit and conservative demand for truth: RISK.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-07 00:05:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828756412557905924

    Reply addressees: @nickgillespie

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828755610183335941

    IN REPLY TO:

    @nickgillespie

    Disagree strongly w this. Postmodernism very close to Hayekian/libertarian vision of limits to knowledge https://t.co/Bb59cdheCr https://t.co/7CXnElhLh6

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/828755610183335941