Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • GOOD MUSIC? DEFINE GOOD? (worth repeading) Good music is judged like all good ar

    GOOD MUSIC? DEFINE GOOD?

    (worth repeading)

    Good music is judged like all good art: (a)craftsmanship(materials and processes), (b)design (aesthetic appeal), (c) symbolism.

    The more capital in each a,b,c, the better. The more durable the capital the better (the longer it remains in the vernacular)

    After all, that is what beauty means to mankind: the presence of resources.

    And especially if we add additional ‘resources’ by way of innovation (invention).

    Some works are well crafted, well designed, and symbolically immoral.

    Craftsmanship refers to dept and complexity.

    Aesthetics to the emotional associations it evokes through the use of properties of sound.

    Symbolism (meaning, content) refers to the narrative in correspondence with the other two.

    So deeply crafted, emotionally experiential, poetically deep.

    And in all three dimensions: inventive.

    I could compare a series of reasonably well known songs that use very simple techniques reliant upon just the voice, in increasing complexity. I would consider all of these songs objectively good, despite their range.

    Greensleves – Anon.

    Scarborough Fair – simon and garfunkle

    Hallelujia – jeff buckley

    Cursum Perficio – Enya

    Fiddle and Drum (a capella) – Perfect Circle

    O Fortuna (Carmina Burana) – Carl Orf.

    Hallelujia Corus – Handel

    We refer to these as hymns (ballads to god-nature) or ballads (hymns to love).

    In the pop genre we know how to create the ‘perfect song’, of which my favorite: “smells like teen spirit” is I think the current place holder. The staying power of Knickelback is that they have systematized if not industrialized the process of producing this category of songs.

    Lets take another series and explore the border between hymn and anthem:

    Canon in D minor – Pachelbel.

    Kashmir by Led Zeppelin.

    Sober by Tool.

    Passive by Perfect Circle.

    ( could go on forever here )

    Most of the history of rock consists of Coming of Age Music (Celebration Music) – the joy of opportunity.

    Strangely it’s hard to find a lot of great stuff in there.

    I mean, we can go thru every movement in music and do the same. And yes, I like chick pop also. I just understand that it’s novelty, not art.

    It’s hard to Beat bach, but Mozart and Beethoven are still more popular. Why? Applied to joy and celebration rather than to … you know. That churchy stuff.

    It is hard sometimes to separate a great VOICE or a great RECORDING, from great music. The usual example is one of my favorite recordings: Gimme’ Shelter, which is really a great recording but you can’t really repeat the experience again. And any number of female vocalists can sing anything, and its beautiful because they have a great voice, but it is not the music that matters so much as their production of it.

    I have a thing for the voice, key, harmony, tempo, volume changes, and the use of silence. Possibly because I was in Chorus through I think 6th grade or so. And because of singing in church. But my taste dissipates rapidly without them, so a lot of dance/house rap music is uninteresting tom me while interesting to some other aficionados. I consider their work a technical investigation, but like the philosophy of language, a dead end.

    Most advancement in music over over the past 40 years has been happening in sound for film and video games. Not in popular music.

    I think that in retrospect we evolved new distribution models: phonograph/club, am radio/car, fm radio/stadium, videos/television, portable digital and spectacular film.

    And that as the quality of the recording and playback increased, so did the richness of the material. ie: 50s/60’s sounded good on shit equipment. 70’s/80’s a little better. We got to late seventies and they started to mix loud. WE got to punk and they started to vary volume, we got to nineties and they started to combine everything. And since then the movement has been in the great movies and gaming, not so much the consumer space – which has produced a set of race-class-driven formulas for the satisfation of identities. And it’s not really collectively innovative any longer.

    I suggest, operationally speaking, the era of ‘unity’ that we saw under the advent of the universalist movements made possible by mass media, will break into mini-markets and stay that way.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukriane

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-26 05:24:00 UTC

  • The Technologies of Truth Telling: 1 – Allegorical(understandable), 2 – Reasonab

    http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/01/pre-socratics-or-first-philosophers.htmlEva,

    The Technologies of Truth Telling:

    1 – Allegorical(understandable), 2 – Reasonable(given ignorance), 3 – Rational(given knowledge), 4 – Scientific (given criticism of physical law), 5 – Testimonial (given criticism by natural law).

    Pre-Socratic work is limited to Allegorical methods. Socrates gives us reasonability – a way of conducting criticism of our ideas to determine whether they survive. In this way, he is the first thinker to evolve criticism as a test of truth: falsifying, rather than using ideation as a means of invention: imagining.

    Socrates is the first step in a long evolution to the completion of epistemology that unites Truth, Science, Philosophy, Morality, and Law.

    The pre-socratics were not able to give us this technology. Socrates did.

    So the distinction between the socratics and the pre-socratics is as relevant as the distinction between religon and science, and science and testimony.

    They are not equal in merit.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-26 02:20:00 UTC

  • If you want to learn how to argue truthfully, rather than rely upon effeminate m

    If you want to learn how to argue truthfully, rather than rely upon effeminate methods of deceit.

    If you want to be a man rather than a pussy, then we are happy to educate you.

    There are still enough men left to teach you to be a man again.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-25 06:06:00 UTC

  • SAUL KRIPKE MAKES THE SAME COSMOPOLITAN ERROR AS WITTGENSTEIN. (for critical rat

    SAUL KRIPKE MAKES THE SAME COSMOPOLITAN ERROR AS WITTGENSTEIN.

    (for critical rationalists, critical realists, philosophers of science, and professional or semi-professional philosophers this is important)

    I knew I would figure it out. Sounds, Meaning, Law, “Platonism”. And he is not a naturalist or materialist. (Although these terms in themselves are operationally insufficient.)

    DOOLITTLE (TESTIMONIALISM)

    A deterministic universe > changes in state > operations > experiences > descriptive names of (a)subjective experiences **or** <b>objective experiences **or** (c)operations(repeatable) > common names(justificationary/meaning) > necessary names(critical/truth).

    This follows the standard epistemological sequence: free-association > hypothesis(justificationary) > theory(critical) > Law.

    The Problem of Ideal Types rather than Supply Demand Curves is everywhere in western thought.

    And it has four origins:

    1) Natural human tendency for simplicity in comparisons. (discounting)

    2) Monotheistic universalism seeking of ideals (moral laws)

    3) Moral rationalism seeking of ideals (moral-legal laws)

    4) Mathematics (particularly geometry).

    5) Ideal Types, General Rules, Theories : without limits and full accounting.

    The universe equilibrates. There are no unlimited non tautological (non trivial) theories. (natural phenomenon are analogous to distributions with strange tails). And human behavior and cognition function by supply and demand curves – NOT distributions, and NOT ideal types.

    Weber was SO CLOSE.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 04:22:00 UTC

  • No, Religious Freedom Cannot Be a Fundamental Natural Right

    (read it) (learn it) (share it) (rhetorical weaponry)

    —“Religious freedom is a fundamental right”— The Heritage Foundation

    [T]his cannot logically be true. No fundamental right can exist if it violates natural law. Religion must be compatible with Natural Law or it is not religion but politics in religious dress, or warfare in disguise, but not religion. So it is a contradiction to state that religions that are incompatible with natural law can be claimed a natural right – that is to say there are not natural rights. So I have come to disagree with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Instead: Require Truthful Speech and Truthful Religion: Compatibility with Natural Law. Religion remains truthful despite the use myth, parable, allegory, scripture and ritual, as long as it conveys truthful principles by those analogies: compatibility with natural law. Christianity is compatible with Natural Law. Poly-moralism and Dualist ethics are not compatible with natural law. Christianity advises us how to act in concert with natural law. Islam, Judaism, and a handful of others recommend actions an expressly counter to natural law. And they state that they contain laws – the Jewish Halakha and the Islamic Sharia both claim divine laws, yet they are incompatible with natural law. Christians have been tolerant of heresies and competing religions in order to prevent the mandate of a state religion, and therefore to protect natural law, and the independence of religious wisdom based upon natural law from harm by the folly of men. Neither Christianity nor Natural Law prohibit us from the expurgation of immoral religions that violate natural law. Nor are we prohibited from philosophies that violate natural law: had we defeated marxism-leninism earlier then we would have saved a hundred million souls from suffering. We cast Islam out of western europa for its violence and immorality, and failed to throw it out of eastern europa, north Africa, and Byzantium. Look at what our failure wrought wherever we failed. We are in the midst of throwing of the second great deceit after the forcible conversion of the romans: the pseudoscientific attempt at western colonization: boazian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxist sociology, cantorian mathematical platonism, marxist-keynesian correlative economics, enlightenment equality, and the philosophical corners of marxist socialism, trotskyist-straussian neo-conservatism, and randian-rothbardian libertinism, and neo-puritanism+postmodern-feminism. And we have come into contact with the third wave, this time not by force (islamic conquest), not by religious conversion (jewish christianity), not by pseudoscientific conversion (jewish cosmopolitanism), not by outright deception (postmodernism, feminism, and propaganda). We the current conflict is our awakening will to evict this second attempt at colonization of the west, despite our century of tolerance – a tolerance that was abused by everyone we tolerated. There are no unlimited general rules. Our delay in discovering the theory of Relativity taught us this. There are no unlimited premises. No infinite deontological theories other than tautologies. The limit of religious tolerance is Natural Law. Everything else is just another act of war wearing a mask of religion to deceive us by preying upon our altruism. We are the people who invented truth. We rescued mankind from ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty using our technology of truth: science and natural law. We are the only people to have done it. They others hate it. We must not perish from this earth. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Keiv, Ukraine

  • No, Religious Freedom Cannot Be a Fundamental Natural Right

    (read it) (learn it) (share it) (rhetorical weaponry)

    —“Religious freedom is a fundamental right”— The Heritage Foundation

    [T]his cannot logically be true. No fundamental right can exist if it violates natural law. Religion must be compatible with Natural Law or it is not religion but politics in religious dress, or warfare in disguise, but not religion. So it is a contradiction to state that religions that are incompatible with natural law can be claimed a natural right – that is to say there are not natural rights. So I have come to disagree with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Instead: Require Truthful Speech and Truthful Religion: Compatibility with Natural Law. Religion remains truthful despite the use myth, parable, allegory, scripture and ritual, as long as it conveys truthful principles by those analogies: compatibility with natural law. Christianity is compatible with Natural Law. Poly-moralism and Dualist ethics are not compatible with natural law. Christianity advises us how to act in concert with natural law. Islam, Judaism, and a handful of others recommend actions an expressly counter to natural law. And they state that they contain laws – the Jewish Halakha and the Islamic Sharia both claim divine laws, yet they are incompatible with natural law. Christians have been tolerant of heresies and competing religions in order to prevent the mandate of a state religion, and therefore to protect natural law, and the independence of religious wisdom based upon natural law from harm by the folly of men. Neither Christianity nor Natural Law prohibit us from the expurgation of immoral religions that violate natural law. Nor are we prohibited from philosophies that violate natural law: had we defeated marxism-leninism earlier then we would have saved a hundred million souls from suffering. We cast Islam out of western europa for its violence and immorality, and failed to throw it out of eastern europa, north Africa, and Byzantium. Look at what our failure wrought wherever we failed. We are in the midst of throwing of the second great deceit after the forcible conversion of the romans: the pseudoscientific attempt at western colonization: boazian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxist sociology, cantorian mathematical platonism, marxist-keynesian correlative economics, enlightenment equality, and the philosophical corners of marxist socialism, trotskyist-straussian neo-conservatism, and randian-rothbardian libertinism, and neo-puritanism+postmodern-feminism. And we have come into contact with the third wave, this time not by force (islamic conquest), not by religious conversion (jewish christianity), not by pseudoscientific conversion (jewish cosmopolitanism), not by outright deception (postmodernism, feminism, and propaganda). We the current conflict is our awakening will to evict this second attempt at colonization of the west, despite our century of tolerance – a tolerance that was abused by everyone we tolerated. There are no unlimited general rules. Our delay in discovering the theory of Relativity taught us this. There are no unlimited premises. No infinite deontological theories other than tautologies. The limit of religious tolerance is Natural Law. Everything else is just another act of war wearing a mask of religion to deceive us by preying upon our altruism. We are the people who invented truth. We rescued mankind from ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty using our technology of truth: science and natural law. We are the only people to have done it. They others hate it. We must not perish from this earth. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Keiv, Ukraine

  • So I have come to disagree with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Inste

    So I have come to disagree with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Instead: Truthful Speech and Truthful Religion.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-22 13:29:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690526590359445505

    Reply addressees: @Heritage

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690524759734378496

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Heritage

    Religious freedom is a fundamental right—a right America has a proud tradition of respecting. https://t.co/KqAXaSreDv

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690524759734378496

  • Sometimes I think ideology is basically an excuse to compensate for reading disa

    Sometimes I think ideology is basically an excuse to compensate for reading disability. ‘Cause it’s not like the information isn’t out there. It is.

    Yes, I understand it’s hard to know which books, and yes, I understand that it is far better to ask other people to educate you than to read – some of us enjoy educating others.

    But that is different from needing a vent for one’s frustration at the world, and clinging onto a life raft that justifies your rebellion.

    Propertarianism doesn’t tell me I’m right or anyone else is right. It tells me that the only way we know what is right is through exchange.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 02:59:00 UTC

  • meaning to understand. Names for truth

    meaning to understand. Names for truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 17:31:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/689862940661583872

    Reply addressees: @soapjackal @DIA_operative @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/689703038110461953

    IN REPLY TO:

    @soapjackal

    @DIA_operative @curtdoolittle @Outsideness Too complex to start out with but if you are comfortable with it then you may see illustartion

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/689703038110461953

  • Once meaning is transferred we must transfer truth using names not analogies

    Once meaning is transferred we must transfer truth using names not analogies.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 17:31:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/689862813737709569

    Reply addressees: @soapjackal @DIA_operative @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/689703038110461953

    IN REPLY TO:

    @soapjackal

    @DIA_operative @curtdoolittle @Outsideness Too complex to start out with but if you are comfortable with it then you may see illustartion

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/689703038110461953