Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • DON’T WASTE MY TIME WITH DEISM – IN COURT AS IN ALL ADULT CONVERSATION – CHILDRE

    DON’T WASTE MY TIME WITH DEISM – IN COURT AS IN ALL ADULT CONVERSATION – CHILDREN SHOULD BE RARELY SEEN AND NEVER HEARD

    Don’t waste my time. I am not a friend of theists. I consider such people well intentioned children. Instead, we are a product of the Universe, and heroes, demigods, and gods are a product of man. We need a church (meeting place) and we need myths(strategy), an Oath(promise), Rituals (payment of costs), and Festivals (Rewards for rituals). We need these things like we need manners, ethics, morals and laws. But the words of the prophets are wisdom literature – parables – advice. It is true that this wisdom literature contains wisdom in some cases. But that is not the same as truth. And there is no reason that truth is not our wisdom literature : unless it is our strategy to lie, cheat, and steal.

    I specialize in truthful speech and in falsifying the fictionalisms (comforting lies). I do realize that given the limited abilities of the human mind, the members of the polity require The Magical(Supernatural), The theological, The ideal, The Pseudoscientific, because they lack the agency to tolerate the incompleteness(uncertainty) of The Operational(Scientific). It takes intellectual, emotional, and physical courage to say ‘i don’t know, YET’. And to simply accept that the universe is quite simple, and cognitively sterile.

    If you need these things you merely say you lack the agency to participate in judgement and rule. You are not yet fully human. It may in fact be impossible for you to be fully human.

    That is ok. Because we do not need everyone to be a judge and to rule. We simply need enough judges and rulers that we can create truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, markets in everything, and as a consequence sufficiently competitive society that we continue our evolution rather than become the victim once again of the natural devolution of the underclasses.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 07:50:00 UTC

  • REVERENCE I don’t revere anything because that would mean I lacked the reason to

    REVERENCE

    I don’t revere anything because that would mean I lacked the reason to judge it without reliance on emotion for decidability.

    There is no difficulty (for me) between talking to a god (which I do daily) and understanding the composition of that god, for the simple reason that talking to a god works. Lots of us talking to gods works better. Just as fitness is a substitute for physical labor, talking to gods is a substitute for talking to our “headmen”, or “Grandparents”.

    I understand that very few of us lack that degree of agency. Which is why I’m trying to find a way to produce the same results without the semitic nonsense.

    Very few people can be entirely dependent upon reason. It’s possible that we can train the majority of the population to have a more rational kind of faith than the evil statist or evil supernatural kinds.

    The problem is finding a narrative that makes it tolerable without making a lot of people ‘disappear’ first.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 06:59:00 UTC

  • Pilpul Is as Easily Identifiable as Its Negative: Critique

    —“I am somewhat curious as to why you blocked me from your timeline. …… You do come across as an intellectual, being an educated philosopher, I am just very surprised that an intellectual would have such a disdain for a fluid free flow of dialogue even if it does come from a position that might make some of your followers feel moderately uncomfortable. The greatest ideas of the intellectual heros throughout history were allowed to flourish due to at least somewhat of a tolerance towards dissenting views and novel ideas.”— Banned Pilpul Practitioner. It’s because (a) sarcasm, (b) pilpul. Specialize in truth, within truth in grammars, with grammars of the art of lying. Now you were raised in the culture that (a) invented poly moralism, (b) never succeeded at developing agrarian ethics, and (c) practiced pillpul to employ those polymoral ethics. But your method of argument (pilpul) is just as recognizable to me (and my followers) as is christian or muslim argument. So it’s simply that as a practitioner and teacher of truthful speech, I practiced what I teach, and that is, the punishment and suppression of ‘lying’, by the use of pilpul. It’s not complicated. You may not even be aware that you’re lying you just equate that form of lying with ‘reasonableness’. But I know (and we know) better: it’s an attempt to advertise ingroup morality while practicing ougroup immorality. I don’t support ‘free speech’ at all. I only support free ‘truthful speech’. And I expose and ostracize the rest.

  • Pilpul Is as Easily Identifiable as Its Negative: Critique

    —“I am somewhat curious as to why you blocked me from your timeline. …… You do come across as an intellectual, being an educated philosopher, I am just very surprised that an intellectual would have such a disdain for a fluid free flow of dialogue even if it does come from a position that might make some of your followers feel moderately uncomfortable. The greatest ideas of the intellectual heros throughout history were allowed to flourish due to at least somewhat of a tolerance towards dissenting views and novel ideas.”— Banned Pilpul Practitioner. It’s because (a) sarcasm, (b) pilpul. Specialize in truth, within truth in grammars, with grammars of the art of lying. Now you were raised in the culture that (a) invented poly moralism, (b) never succeeded at developing agrarian ethics, and (c) practiced pillpul to employ those polymoral ethics. But your method of argument (pilpul) is just as recognizable to me (and my followers) as is christian or muslim argument. So it’s simply that as a practitioner and teacher of truthful speech, I practiced what I teach, and that is, the punishment and suppression of ‘lying’, by the use of pilpul. It’s not complicated. You may not even be aware that you’re lying you just equate that form of lying with ‘reasonableness’. But I know (and we know) better: it’s an attempt to advertise ingroup morality while practicing ougroup immorality. I don’t support ‘free speech’ at all. I only support free ‘truthful speech’. And I expose and ostracize the rest.

  • THE WAR ON NOTICING THE TRUTH —“Once you see it you can’t unsee it. Hence the

    THE WAR ON NOTICING THE TRUTH

    —“Once you see it you can’t unsee it. Hence the ubiquitous war on noticing in general . The time and resources expended to keep people from seeing the obvious are truly astounding.”— Edgar Braintree

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-23 20:29:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/999386843450957824

  • THE WAR ON NOTICING THE TRUTH —“Once you see it you can’t unsee it. Hence the

    THE WAR ON NOTICING THE TRUTH

    —“Once you see it you can’t unsee it. Hence the ubiquitous war on noticing in general . The time and resources expended to keep people from seeing the obvious are truly astounding.”— Edgar Braintree

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-23 16:29:00 UTC

  • Scientism Is Shaming Unless You Mean Positivism – I Don’t. I Do Testimonialism.

    —“I may be mistaken here, but your thinking on economics, identity politics, making choices, is based on Scientism.”—Mark Goodkin Well, that’s just name calling unless we can operationalize that as a test of truth, contingency, or falsehood. As far as I know we continuously converge on increases in precision using logical and physical instrumentation (science), and we reorganize our network of categories, relations and value judgements (and narratives) in response to those increases. We do this because increases in precision (particularly those above and below human scale) increase our agency (ability to act). Only a justificationist (which is false) prioritizes representation (meaning) over action (demonstration). No matter what we understand or how we understand it, our actions produce decreasingly divergent consequences or not. It’s true that we have a psychological bias to prefer fixed answers because it lowers the cost of constant reorganization but the evidence is that we are extraordinarily successful at increases in parsimony and the result of that parsimony is convergence on marginal indifference. Choice on the other hand (preference and good) are something else. Generally speaking we have found that increases in agency (truth) have produced greater choices with higher returns, while we have also found that philosophy(justificationary rationalism) has produced profound delays and horrors – not the least of which was the Rousseau> Kant> Marx/Freud/Boas> Lenin/Trotsky> Keynesian > Neocon/Libertarian/Postmodern series. That’s before we go back to theological – which is the deadliest information system ever invented by man, and second only to malaria and the great plagues.

  • Scientism Is Shaming Unless You Mean Positivism – I Don’t. I Do Testimonialism.

    —“I may be mistaken here, but your thinking on economics, identity politics, making choices, is based on Scientism.”—Mark Goodkin Well, that’s just name calling unless we can operationalize that as a test of truth, contingency, or falsehood. As far as I know we continuously converge on increases in precision using logical and physical instrumentation (science), and we reorganize our network of categories, relations and value judgements (and narratives) in response to those increases. We do this because increases in precision (particularly those above and below human scale) increase our agency (ability to act). Only a justificationist (which is false) prioritizes representation (meaning) over action (demonstration). No matter what we understand or how we understand it, our actions produce decreasingly divergent consequences or not. It’s true that we have a psychological bias to prefer fixed answers because it lowers the cost of constant reorganization but the evidence is that we are extraordinarily successful at increases in parsimony and the result of that parsimony is convergence on marginal indifference. Choice on the other hand (preference and good) are something else. Generally speaking we have found that increases in agency (truth) have produced greater choices with higher returns, while we have also found that philosophy(justificationary rationalism) has produced profound delays and horrors – not the least of which was the Rousseau> Kant> Marx/Freud/Boas> Lenin/Trotsky> Keynesian > Neocon/Libertarian/Postmodern series. That’s before we go back to theological – which is the deadliest information system ever invented by man, and second only to malaria and the great plagues.

  • The folly of that argument is that there exists a continuous stream of people (g

    The folly of that argument is that there exists a continuous stream of people (generations) approaching that point in their development of understanding, seeking anchors of decidability, and all future decisions will be weighted by those anchors. We keep ideas alive.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-21 12:51:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998546734845517825

    Reply addressees: @OldBookClub @KalishJantzen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998517673825718273

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998517673825718273

  • agency, truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, heroism, duty, and markets in everythin

    agency, truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, heroism, duty, and markets in everything.

    agency, truth,
    sovereignty, reciprocity,
    heroism, duty,
    and markets in everything.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-21 12:38:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998543457957433345