Form: Quote Commentary

MOST IMPORTANT POST I HAVE WRITTEN IN ON FACEBOOK TO DATE

by Andy Curzon (with afterward by Curt Doolittle)

Let me make it simple for people not understanding Peterson or Doolittle.

The lack of understanding (and resulting frustration and unwitting arrogance) arises from two very different causes:

either (a) not listening to him enough or (b) not having the humility or capacity to realise what can be learnt from his methods – and that can not be gleaned from t’other approach.

Peterson uses (a) data from experimental sciences, and honesty (with oneself and others – so that the feedback is more and more accurate over time…a parallel of sorts to the scientific method) and (b) communication of thoughts whilst mulling patterns over in terms of words and incredibly complicated scientific, literary and life associations to posit hypotheses and test them again and again from as many angles and between as many people (for increased perspectives) as possible. These grow and die and interlink…this is a method (and to explain it properly would take a lot more words than I am offering here). It is a method of testing all the opportunities to apply the idea to see how it corresponds with science, literature, and life.

But I am explaining this only to hyper-verbals.

The same could be said for expounders of Curt’s method (again something that would take many words). Curt produces ‘proofs’ (tests of strictly constructed arguments), and asks people to tear those arguments apart. And he repeats this process over and over again, as theories shrink and fail, and grow and survive.

But his would only make sense to an aspie (or such).

Studying both of them has all taught me it is a rare person who can think in both Curt’s manner (aspies) and in Peterson’s manner (hyper-verbal). People who can not think in both will not understand both. They will do their best to tear down the other method NOT TO LEARN but to bolster their own view. They have no other tools. It is not their fault.

I am not suggesting Curt cannot be wrong and some errors can not be identified by people who think hyper-verbally, or Peterson is not wrong in ways that can be identified by aspies….but NOT IN THEIR METHOD AND USES BUT THEIR RESULTS (and again, I am am not suggesting either methos flawless or uses correctly and fully identified).

Aspies will not understand Peterson’s methods and uses (as proved by many posts I have read over the past few days) and hyper-verbals will not understand Curt’s science and logic (they sit on the theory and history as he correctly points out).

Hyper-verbals (i.e. Tolstoy; Nietzsche) will write about the limits and perils of the intellect and aspies will talk of the limits and perils of learning without being unscientific but only people with both sets of tools/capacities (i.e. Da Vinci; Goethe) will entertain both BECAUSE THEY SEE THE UTILITY IN BOTH. Clearly one method excels at ‘how one should live’ (h.-v.) and t’other to ‘how things are’ (asp.) but they do overlap.

So is it only >165/170s IQ who have the capacity to understand both? It seems self-evident. But can this itself only be seen by those people? And is this frustrating for them? Yes.

I am confident that hyper-verbals (lacking aspie capabilities) and aspies (lacking verbal) will not understand each other HOWEVER MANY TIMES AND IN WHATEVER NUMBER OF WAYS I DESCRIBE IT TO THEM.

It just FEELS wrong to them and they use their method of perception to justify their feelings.

What is the next step? I am at a loss…on the one hand you’re trying to teach a monkey Spanish, and on t’other trying to train a hungry wolf the active value of being friends with a rabbit.

Mission impossible.

But Finally admitting that not all people can understand all things (and getting rid of my inverse Dunning-Kruger) was the only way to arrive at this.

And this was a bigger struggle than I can explain…very humbling.

At least for now.

— CURT RESPONDS —

Hence for the necessity of markets in everything – all aspects of life.

Because the competition between via positiva opportunities (verbalists, literature), and via negativa limitations (aspies, law) means that we cannot *function* or even claim to *know* anything at all that is both good (opportunity), and true (limits).

It is only through productive, truthful, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange in markets that we ‘calculate’ the difference between positive opportunity(verbal via positiva literature) and negative limits (calculated via negativa, law) – and discover that which is *BOTH GOOD AND TRUE*.

Having stated that method of calculation by exchange, I will admit the obvious, that the priest and merchant are more welcome than the sheriff and judge – and always will be.

Except that is, when you are in a matter of conflict.

While the verbalists emphasize opportunity, the autists (calculators), emphasize duty. And as long as enough of us do our duty in limiting everyone else’s opportunity, it is both a necessary and moral and profitable industry. Some of us must be warriors, sheriffs, and judges – otherwise the opportunity for most will be lost.

So while via-positiva education in opportunity is more desirable, it is via-negativa limits by non-discretinoary, calculative law that is far more necessary. If only because western civilization ,reason, and science and all the prosperity that the west has so rapidly produced and distributed, originated in the ordinary, tediously scientific, practice of the ancient discipline of germanic, common, law of property that we call torts, using competition between parties before a jury of their peers, and refereed by a judge.

-Curt Doolittle