Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548869369 Timestamp) MORE ON ADAM AND CURT’S DISCUSSION ON METAPHYSICS. (QUESTIONS FOR METAPHYSICISTS) —“…substance…”— Your [Adam] approach is extremely useful in demarcation of legal decidability. It is the physical equivalent of the decidability provided by potential interest and demonstrated interest. So as you taught me recently Aristotle is an exceptional framework for cognition at human scale, and while we may know post human scale both micro and macro, that only assists us in removing falsehood and error from decisions at human scale. We are only capable of acting at human scale and cooperating at human scale…. So Aristotle really did learn about the universe from writing the athenian constitution…. —“…underlies…”– Operationalize that term and … —“Real Metaphysics – How we ought to think. If you are actually thinking, then you are so constrained that you cannot help but think such and such, which we call “metaphysics”. This there is a form of necessity that is neither logical nor physical, but which underlies both.”— I don’t know what metaphysics means – other than ‘Aristotle’s failed attempt to operationalize the brain’. So ‘fitting’ is simply error. And any talk of “metaphysics’ is fitting. We can instead ask, given his ignorance, what categories of phenomenon was he seeking to explain? He could not explain the function of the brain, and the relationship between that lower function, and the means of calculation and communication we call language. (serial, continuous, recursive, disambiguation, resulting in sufficiency for a contract for meaning.) I know the following. 1 – the natural world exists (reality) and persists independent of our thought and action, and follows simple deterministic rules from which complexity arises, including the complexity of near chaos due to the hierarchy of possible operations and near-infinite scale. I know this because I am unwilling to act contrary to that condition in any manner that would test that condition; and I observe this in everyone else; Beyond that is meaningless because only action determines outcomes. 2 – to be able to act in this world and capture calories we have evolved a great deal of memory with which to convert high information density experience into fragmentary (distributed fractional memory) but reconstructable experiences, of lower information density. 3 – to be able to plan a sequence of actions we have evolved categories of constant contingent relations in memory by the addition of more layers of memory. 4 – to be able to communicate we evolved language to communicate stories in serial, continuous, recursive, disambiguation until a contract for meaning has been achieved.) 5 – this language required rules of continuous disambiguation, and so we evolved the natural grammar. 6 – once we had the grammar we could engage in reason, calculation, and eventually computation. 7 – increases in opportunity for exploitation of the natura world (and the human) cause increase scope of communication. T 8 – the greater the correspondence with reality, and the greater the scope, and the more consistent the relations in those categories and grammar, the greater the ability to act to seize calories by which to insulate the mind, emotions, and body from stress and cellular damage (wear and tear). 9 – at some point a competitive advantage in non-correspondence evolved (frauds and deceits) in order for those lacking agency to compete with those possessing agency. 10- this ‘resistance movement’ creates many fictions (non correspondences) to improve political resistance in opposition to economic and military agency Ergo my only interest is not in the correspondence per se but in the use of non-correspondence for the purpose of parasitism and predation.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548868857 Timestamp) QUESTION: IS MORALITY OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE? (The Definitive Answer. Core.) —“Curt, sorry to bother you because I know you are extremely busy, but need your insight.”— CD: Thank you for respecting my time, but it’s my job, and I like my job (mostly). It’s no use being a Law Giver if you don’t answer questions of law. 😉 —“I am having a discussion about reciprocity with a person coming from a philosophy background. It started with his assertion that all morality is subjective.”— CD: This is a grammatical problem – a failure of deflation and disambiguation.

    • Personal morality is subjective and representative of personal utility, under which one considers actions reciprocal(power) and proportional(weakness) or not. It is not in fact moral, only useful.

    • Normative morality is subjectively respectable or avoidable, but rarely breakable without some cost to you. It is not in fact moral, only the result of market competition for reciprocity(power) and proportionality(weakness).

    • Juridical Morality is objective: it is merely reciprocal. This is an empirical AND logical AND rational statement, since it is the universal basis for all law, with northern european being the least ‘tainted’.

    So while a POSITIVE morality (what you want) may vary, NEGATIVE morality (what people do not want) does not vary. And while we may have different subjective opinions over negative morality, it is quite simple to demonstrate otherwise that all law operates by reciprocity in matters of dispute. And all legislation aims at producing proportionality with in the limits of tolerable reciprocity given the economic order possible for the people in their state of development and geography. In other words, it is not a opinion that morality (reciprocity) is a negative and objective universal, but that positive morality (proportionality) varies by circumstance. The problem is that we use the word MORALITY without deflating it into POSITIVE (proportionality) and NEGATIVE (reciprocity). Because variations in positive is merely utilitarian for the individual but invariance in the negative is utilitarian for all.) —“Of course, I took the opportunity to bring reciprocity into the discussion, even to the point where reciprocity as a measurable standard could be used to remove the subjectiveness. My meaning is that all acts are amoral, and we can measure empirically if an act is good (moral) or bad (immoral) based solely on if it violates reciprocity. “— CD: You are quite correct. I offer the previous few paragraphs as means of explaining his conflation of positive and negative morality. So like positive and negative freedom, there cannot be any forceful positive freedoms, only negative without breaking the negative. As such There is no positive morality that can be demanded, only negative morality demanded, without breaking negative morality. … It might surprise you that it took 2500 years for someone to write those paragraphs but unfortunately, every other time it vanished. Maybe this time it will vanish through suppression as well. —“I do not want to bring property-in-toto into the discussion yet, as I am attempting to keep in simple and in lay terms, even using simple examples to demonstrate. “— CD: You don’t bring property in toto into a discussion since that is too loaded. It is better to ask if everything can be reduced to attempt at acquisition of something whether information experience, opportunity or resource and ask them if they can find an exception – they can’t. Then you just explain everything in terms of who is trying to acquire or defend what, and then show how reciprocity is the only rational choice – particularly for the strong. —“I am writing as much (actually more) for others who will read it than trying to convince this “moral relativist”, so I don’t want to overcomplicate it. “— (CD: Good. That is the tactic you should always use. You are more likely to sway the audience than the opponent, because the audience is less invested in the signaling.) —“Okay, now for the question. “—- CD: So you’re going to ask something harder than to deflate morality and to determine if it is objective or subjective? lol. —“I was reading back though your posts, even back to 2016, looking if there was any insights if there are any conditions under which Conquest/Colonization did not violate reciprocity? I doubt I will be able to convince him, as he will not let go of his “subjectivity”, but I believe I need to answer his point that even property obtained via reciprocity is subjective, because one can reject the validity of ownership (by lack of moral justifications) because it can “only be owned through social contract” and that social contract is “based on theft and colonization.”— —“He also claims that there cannot be one standard, even one of reciprocity, because even it is subjective. He claims that the “operational variables required for it to be true cannot exist outside subjectivity”. But, is that not why we make it operational and deflate terms, to remove such subjectivity? Am I missing something?”— There is one negative standard (reciprocity) by which all laws especially international laws are judged. That’s both logical and empirical. The evidence is what it is. It may be useful within groups to develop personal and normative morality, and to legislate proportionality for various utilitarian reasons. However, morality remains, like freedom, like law, both logically and empirically a via-negativa; a via-negativa of reciprocity; and no positive morality can exist without violating the via negativa other than restitution for costs imposed. I suppose I should diagram this so that it’s a bit more obvious to people. But they readily (all of us do) conflate personal moral intuition, with normative moral habituation, with objective morality: reciprocity. And there is no other meaning possible, and all other attempts to make it possible are thefts, frauds, and sophisms. There is one objective moral law: reciprocity, and an infinite number of utilitarian means of contributing to a commons from which all might benefit. To say those contributions to the commons in order to satisfy a sense of proportionality as well as reciprocity, are moral is simply false. They are purchasing amoral options against immorality. And most of those options are returning nothing other than psychic rewards (self worth, virtue signaling) because of one’s failure to meaningfully contribute, because of one’s lack of agency. SO worse, those that lack such agency use this virtue signaling to coerce redistribution (theft) from some to others not for sake of proportionality or reciprocity, but to compensate for their lack of agency in achieving proportionality under the terms of reciprocity. That is all. If you can find any other philosopher that does a better job of providing this explanatory power in this precise a langauge then I would love to know who that is. Cheers.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548857704 Timestamp) Mindfulness can be provided truthfully or untruthfully. Mindfulness is extremely rewarding. So rewarding that we defend it. Religion provides an addiction response, and the natural response of addicts to defend the source of their addiction.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548869369 Timestamp) MORE ON ADAM AND CURT’S DISCUSSION ON METAPHYSICS. (QUESTIONS FOR METAPHYSICISTS) —“…substance…”— Your [Adam] approach is extremely useful in demarcation of legal decidability. It is the physical equivalent of the decidability provided by potential interest and demonstrated interest. So as you taught me recently Aristotle is an exceptional framework for cognition at human scale, and while we may know post human scale both micro and macro, that only assists us in removing falsehood and error from decisions at human scale. We are only capable of acting at human scale and cooperating at human scale…. So Aristotle really did learn about the universe from writing the athenian constitution…. —“…underlies…”– Operationalize that term and … —“Real Metaphysics – How we ought to think. If you are actually thinking, then you are so constrained that you cannot help but think such and such, which we call “metaphysics”. This there is a form of necessity that is neither logical nor physical, but which underlies both.”— I don’t know what metaphysics means – other than ‘Aristotle’s failed attempt to operationalize the brain’. So ‘fitting’ is simply error. And any talk of “metaphysics’ is fitting. We can instead ask, given his ignorance, what categories of phenomenon was he seeking to explain? He could not explain the function of the brain, and the relationship between that lower function, and the means of calculation and communication we call language. (serial, continuous, recursive, disambiguation, resulting in sufficiency for a contract for meaning.) I know the following. 1 – the natural world exists (reality) and persists independent of our thought and action, and follows simple deterministic rules from which complexity arises, including the complexity of near chaos due to the hierarchy of possible operations and near-infinite scale. I know this because I am unwilling to act contrary to that condition in any manner that would test that condition; and I observe this in everyone else; Beyond that is meaningless because only action determines outcomes. 2 – to be able to act in this world and capture calories we have evolved a great deal of memory with which to convert high information density experience into fragmentary (distributed fractional memory) but reconstructable experiences, of lower information density. 3 – to be able to plan a sequence of actions we have evolved categories of constant contingent relations in memory by the addition of more layers of memory. 4 – to be able to communicate we evolved language to communicate stories in serial, continuous, recursive, disambiguation until a contract for meaning has been achieved.) 5 – this language required rules of continuous disambiguation, and so we evolved the natural grammar. 6 – once we had the grammar we could engage in reason, calculation, and eventually computation. 7 – increases in opportunity for exploitation of the natura world (and the human) cause increase scope of communication. T 8 – the greater the correspondence with reality, and the greater the scope, and the more consistent the relations in those categories and grammar, the greater the ability to act to seize calories by which to insulate the mind, emotions, and body from stress and cellular damage (wear and tear). 9 – at some point a competitive advantage in non-correspondence evolved (frauds and deceits) in order for those lacking agency to compete with those possessing agency. 10- this ‘resistance movement’ creates many fictions (non correspondences) to improve political resistance in opposition to economic and military agency Ergo my only interest is not in the correspondence per se but in the use of non-correspondence for the purpose of parasitism and predation.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548868857 Timestamp) QUESTION: IS MORALITY OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE? (The Definitive Answer. Core.) —“Curt, sorry to bother you because I know you are extremely busy, but need your insight.”— CD: Thank you for respecting my time, but it’s my job, and I like my job (mostly). It’s no use being a Law Giver if you don’t answer questions of law. 😉 —“I am having a discussion about reciprocity with a person coming from a philosophy background. It started with his assertion that all morality is subjective.”— CD: This is a grammatical problem – a failure of deflation and disambiguation.

    • Personal morality is subjective and representative of personal utility, under which one considers actions reciprocal(power) and proportional(weakness) or not. It is not in fact moral, only useful.

    • Normative morality is subjectively respectable or avoidable, but rarely breakable without some cost to you. It is not in fact moral, only the result of market competition for reciprocity(power) and proportionality(weakness).

    • Juridical Morality is objective: it is merely reciprocal. This is an empirical AND logical AND rational statement, since it is the universal basis for all law, with northern european being the least ‘tainted’.

    So while a POSITIVE morality (what you want) may vary, NEGATIVE morality (what people do not want) does not vary. And while we may have different subjective opinions over negative morality, it is quite simple to demonstrate otherwise that all law operates by reciprocity in matters of dispute. And all legislation aims at producing proportionality with in the limits of tolerable reciprocity given the economic order possible for the people in their state of development and geography. In other words, it is not a opinion that morality (reciprocity) is a negative and objective universal, but that positive morality (proportionality) varies by circumstance. The problem is that we use the word MORALITY without deflating it into POSITIVE (proportionality) and NEGATIVE (reciprocity). Because variations in positive is merely utilitarian for the individual but invariance in the negative is utilitarian for all.) —“Of course, I took the opportunity to bring reciprocity into the discussion, even to the point where reciprocity as a measurable standard could be used to remove the subjectiveness. My meaning is that all acts are amoral, and we can measure empirically if an act is good (moral) or bad (immoral) based solely on if it violates reciprocity. “— CD: You are quite correct. I offer the previous few paragraphs as means of explaining his conflation of positive and negative morality. So like positive and negative freedom, there cannot be any forceful positive freedoms, only negative without breaking the negative. As such There is no positive morality that can be demanded, only negative morality demanded, without breaking negative morality. … It might surprise you that it took 2500 years for someone to write those paragraphs but unfortunately, every other time it vanished. Maybe this time it will vanish through suppression as well. —“I do not want to bring property-in-toto into the discussion yet, as I am attempting to keep in simple and in lay terms, even using simple examples to demonstrate. “— CD: You don’t bring property in toto into a discussion since that is too loaded. It is better to ask if everything can be reduced to attempt at acquisition of something whether information experience, opportunity or resource and ask them if they can find an exception – they can’t. Then you just explain everything in terms of who is trying to acquire or defend what, and then show how reciprocity is the only rational choice – particularly for the strong. —“I am writing as much (actually more) for others who will read it than trying to convince this “moral relativist”, so I don’t want to overcomplicate it. “— (CD: Good. That is the tactic you should always use. You are more likely to sway the audience than the opponent, because the audience is less invested in the signaling.) —“Okay, now for the question. “—- CD: So you’re going to ask something harder than to deflate morality and to determine if it is objective or subjective? lol. —“I was reading back though your posts, even back to 2016, looking if there was any insights if there are any conditions under which Conquest/Colonization did not violate reciprocity? I doubt I will be able to convince him, as he will not let go of his “subjectivity”, but I believe I need to answer his point that even property obtained via reciprocity is subjective, because one can reject the validity of ownership (by lack of moral justifications) because it can “only be owned through social contract” and that social contract is “based on theft and colonization.”— —“He also claims that there cannot be one standard, even one of reciprocity, because even it is subjective. He claims that the “operational variables required for it to be true cannot exist outside subjectivity”. But, is that not why we make it operational and deflate terms, to remove such subjectivity? Am I missing something?”— There is one negative standard (reciprocity) by which all laws especially international laws are judged. That’s both logical and empirical. The evidence is what it is. It may be useful within groups to develop personal and normative morality, and to legislate proportionality for various utilitarian reasons. However, morality remains, like freedom, like law, both logically and empirically a via-negativa; a via-negativa of reciprocity; and no positive morality can exist without violating the via negativa other than restitution for costs imposed. I suppose I should diagram this so that it’s a bit more obvious to people. But they readily (all of us do) conflate personal moral intuition, with normative moral habituation, with objective morality: reciprocity. And there is no other meaning possible, and all other attempts to make it possible are thefts, frauds, and sophisms. There is one objective moral law: reciprocity, and an infinite number of utilitarian means of contributing to a commons from which all might benefit. To say those contributions to the commons in order to satisfy a sense of proportionality as well as reciprocity, are moral is simply false. They are purchasing amoral options against immorality. And most of those options are returning nothing other than psychic rewards (self worth, virtue signaling) because of one’s failure to meaningfully contribute, because of one’s lack of agency. SO worse, those that lack such agency use this virtue signaling to coerce redistribution (theft) from some to others not for sake of proportionality or reciprocity, but to compensate for their lack of agency in achieving proportionality under the terms of reciprocity. That is all. If you can find any other philosopher that does a better job of providing this explanatory power in this precise a langauge then I would love to know who that is. Cheers.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548857704 Timestamp) Mindfulness can be provided truthfully or untruthfully. Mindfulness is extremely rewarding. So rewarding that we defend it. Religion provides an addiction response, and the natural response of addicts to defend the source of their addiction.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548905811 Timestamp) by John Mark The only thing I’d clarify about this is that there are a couple areas where the Left has been operating in reality better than the Right. So:

    1. Copy the Left’s tactic of gossip rally ridicule shame? No. Maybe to help win an election as a short-term play to buy us time, but not as a long-term solution. (The solution is outlaw pollution of the informational commons with lies.)

    2. Copy the Left’s understanding that identity politics wins, and that racial identity is a more powerful petsuasive force for most people (especially nonwhites) than any political ideology or set of ideas? Yes. The Right has tried to be race-blind with disastrous consequences. The Left’s reality-based success with this (colonize us with nonwhites & play identity politics with them) fools many right-wingers, because the Left lies about race, but their actions & strategy are more in line with reality in this area than the Right’s have been. We must learn from them in this area. (Race matters in political persuasion for nonwhites, more than anything else. We must deal with this reality.)

    3. The Left understands that it is all about holding the reins of power, not about “principle” or teaching people. Whoever makes the rules, rules. Whoever makes the rules, gets what they want. They go straight for the jugular: power. Without regard for anything else. Meanwhile, the Right has been trying to “be principled” and teach people (to explain/educate our way to victory). This is a mistake – truth matters not unless truth-enforcers have power and make the rules. Principles mean nothing without the power to enforce them. The Right must learn from the Left in this area.

    4. The Left knows how to be intolerant, to punish its enemies swiftly and harshly. Certain parts of the Right have tried to embrace tolerance (libertarians, classical liberals), with the predictable result that classical liberals and libertarians have zero power. The Right must learn from the Left in this area.
      What confuses the Right is that everything that comes out of the Left’s mouth is a lie. Their communication is all gossip rally ridicule shame (feminine). And we rightly say, “That is not us.” But then we look around and say, “Why do they have all the institutional power?” Well, because their actions (strategy/tactics) have been more in line with reality than the Right’s.

    So yes, the alt-right’s “let’s do ridicule better than the Left” is not our long-term answer. But we must recognize the areas where the Left has operated in reality better than we have, and course correct. Without losing our essence (truth).

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548875653 Timestamp) —“I learned years ago to think in terms of what would be beneficial rather that whats good or bad. Good and bad can be argued all day long but determining what is beneficial is quite simple and difficult to argue against. I believe that change in paradigm is aligned perfectly with reciprocity, as reciprocity(according to my understanding) is finding the most beneficial compromise between two or more parties. What people consider to be “moral” is subjective as it varies from culture to culture and has changed throughout time. I haven’t seen evidence to support the idea that there is such a thing as objective or absolute morality since it is subject to change. Perhaps the notion of defining morality or determining what is moral and amoral is a thing of the past and should be updated to include the most beneficial practices for all parties involved. One sided thinking in the extreme has led to most if not all the social issues that plague humanity, in my opinion of course – I’m sure there are plenty who would disagree(in their state of one sided thinking ;p)”—David McCarthy

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548875653 Timestamp) —“I learned years ago to think in terms of what would be beneficial rather that whats good or bad. Good and bad can be argued all day long but determining what is beneficial is quite simple and difficult to argue against. I believe that change in paradigm is aligned perfectly with reciprocity, as reciprocity(according to my understanding) is finding the most beneficial compromise between two or more parties. What people consider to be “moral” is subjective as it varies from culture to culture and has changed throughout time. I haven’t seen evidence to support the idea that there is such a thing as objective or absolute morality since it is subject to change. Perhaps the notion of defining morality or determining what is moral and amoral is a thing of the past and should be updated to include the most beneficial practices for all parties involved. One sided thinking in the extreme has led to most if not all the social issues that plague humanity, in my opinion of course – I’m sure there are plenty who would disagree(in their state of one sided thinking ;p)”—David McCarthy

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548989747 Timestamp) “One Law to Rule Them All One Law to Bind Them One Law to Conquer Them All And in the Truth Bind Them….”