Author: Curt Doolittle

Q: CURT:
—“I would be interested to see something between Curt and a panel of Mises Institute fellows for example as I think there is much to be gained from such a discussion. Certainly– there is the possibility that even if such a discussion/debate came to pass, that Curt and his fellow debaters might be talking past one another– something I foresee as unavoidable given the Natural Law Institute’s unique employ of language– its density, particularism, and more generally much of the literal vocabulary and terminology as often unorthodox and diverging from popular usage. Then again such a debate might force condensation and translation of the language of Curt’s arguments into a more accessible and coherent format– and establish a beachhead/bridge for potential converts to easily explore his various theses. For example, from what Youtube debates and interviews I find — all are relatively uninteresting because they are more or less Curt talking above or past some incompetent counterparty– unable to effectively challenge or pushback on any argument and force greater comprehensibility. I think formal debates and discussions outside the Institute’s’ own circles represent extremely fertile ground.”—

(1) Our release date is determined by ‘when it’s done’. I have just (mostly) recovered my health and so work is progressing faster, but not as fast as necessary. We will publish the summary(Pamphlet) and the constitution first, the science second and the rest afterward – depending on what’s occurring at the time. The history should be rather easy to finish and less of a cognitive burden so hopefully I’ll find some time for it.

(2) The mises institute people all know me. I have debated Walter Block and it wasn’t a pretty sight for him. And it bothered me because he had not kept up with my work, and I felt like he had been set up to be defeated by the organizers. Walter is someone I care about so I didn’t appreciate the ‘win’ so to speak. My impression is that the mises folk are scared of me. This is because they are rothbardians and rothbardian ethics are diasporic jewish ethics (parasitic), not european high trust ethics, and that as such they have no ability to conduct any argument with me without hurting themselves.

(3) All language and concepts, like the genes of all creatures, contain a set of properties or presumptions. I am, we are, at the institute, conscious of these different genealogies of words and concepts.And we use language that is by use of the methodology of disambiguation and operationalization, consists of terms that are measurements that unlike colloquial, are unambiguous, consistent, and correspondent with causal reality, and in particular with the formal ternary logic of reality.

4) Analytic arguments, mathematical arguments, and constructive arguments (what we do) are ‘burdensome and wordy” because they are proofs. I have worked very hard to ‘dumb it down’, but it can’t be dumbed down much further. So while my words, our words, look like a burdensome and dense english prose, it’s much closer to mathematics or programming. So while we might be able to speak something in aphoristic form, that’s easily understood and communicated, that is not the same as expressing the proof that it’s constructed from. So you know, you can only condense any discipline so far without introducing the possibility of conflation inflation and deception by your interlocutor. My work is not philosophy per se, though verbal set epistemology and logic were often considered philosophy, my work is operational and existential, epistemology and logic and therefore, which is more akin to saying a formal operational programming language of existential reality. As such, like math, or physics, or chemistry, or biochemistry, or any advanced field, despite that it’s subjectively perceivable, is not really reducible to more than analogy. But this doesn’t matter. Because people only need to undrestand its reduction to morality, ethics, and law. Something they can understand.

5) As such debates that seek to understand are useful, but debates over disagreements without that seeking to understand are not. I can, we can, seek to understand. And we disagree where the disagreement is measurable using this formal logic (behavioral economics) and therefore we know we are correct.

6) This means that anyone who would debate me or us, would need to both i) seek to understand ii) be capable of understanding ii) because they possessed sufficient knowledge to understand and intelligence to understand. In other words, this individual would need to seek the truth as much as we do regardless of whether we like it or approve of it or not, rather than seek the desirable, or seek to establish the superiority of their ideas, preferences, or biases.

7) In my experience it would take one of the smarter public intellectuals in the world to hold a debate. And their debate would have to consist of some disagreement.

8) Roughly speaking I do not believe there are all but a handful of people that could debate me on even close to equal footing. Even then it would require that I understand their paradigms, biases, presumptions and criteria for good and bad.

9) My opinion, showing respect to my fellow public intellectuals, is that until I have published at least the Summary and the Constitution, and they have something rigorous to understand and criticize, that it’s not worth their time or effort to debate me. I suspect that even then any debate will consists of questions of good or preferences not truth or falsehood, because as far as I know my work is unassailable on truth grounds. Plenty have tried on the one hand, and the evidence of the change in individual intellectual capacity once mastering it is rather obviously profound on the other.

So if you can find someone who is willing and able that would be wonderful. But really, there is no debate to be had so to speak, only seeking to understand. And seeking to understand is rare. Anything political or moral ends up as seeking to win not seeking the truth by seeking to understand.

Cheers