(trying to turn josh’s comment into a description. might take me a bunch of trie

(trying to turn josh’s comment into a description. might take me a bunch of tries)

All Doolittle’s work is reducible to Testimonialism – and Testimonialism is only concerned with intersubjectivity[*1] as the necessary domain of cooperation, law, and political action.

His system isn’t really saying anything we didn’t already know science to be. Other than perhaps, that cooperation written as empirically discovered law can evolve as does knowledge in any other empirical science.

Sociality [*2] inherently needed intersubjective consensus to be possible to be a viable evolutionary strategy, and that’s all we’re really doing with law and society: cooperating on evolutionary strategies.

What you or I may think and write about that tries to move past this simple “roboticism” (uninspiring logic) isn’t really for the domain of law. And in a way, it had to be that way to be individually meaningful.

—

[*1] – In its weakest sense, intersubjectivity refers to agreement.

[*2] – Sociality is the degree to which individuals in an animal population tend to associate in social groups and form cooperative societies. Sociality is a survival response to evolutionary pressures.