Form: Short Note

September 18th, 2018 9:22 AM REGARDING GANS’ GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGY [S]omeone just asked, so for those that are interested in such things, Eric Gans’ Generative Anthropology, is compatible and non-contradictory with Propertarianism. It is however a description of potential (cooperation on policy) not one of limits (resolution of differences by law), and it is narrative (literary and analogical) not operational (descriptive and scientific). Gans is also from the French and Marxist Critical theory schools, which explains his use of literary rather than scientific device. My work, particularly my work on grammars, and my work using neural economy, provide an operational explanation for the emphasis on the consequences of language. But I place dramatically more emphasis on truth as a competitive evolutionary advantage, and tolerance beyond the kin group as a competitive evolutionary disadvantage. This is the opposite of his position. However, when I read him I do not see falsehood, only another attempt to justify a norm rather than to create an excellence using similar understanding of the function of information that he calls language.

September 18th, 2018 9:22 AM REGARDING GANS’ GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGY [S]omeone just asked, so for those that are interested in such things, Eric Gans’ Generative Anthropology, is compatible and non-contradictory with Propertarianism. It is however a description of potential (cooperation on policy) not one of limits (resolution of differences by law), and it is narrative (literary and analogical) not operational (descriptive and scientific). Gans is also from the French and Marxist Critical theory schools, which explains his use of literary rather than scientific device. My work, particularly my work on grammars, and my work using neural economy, provide an operational explanation for the emphasis on the consequences of language. But I place dramatically more emphasis on truth as a competitive evolutionary advantage, and tolerance beyond the kin group as a competitive evolutionary disadvantage. This is the opposite of his position. However, when I read him I do not see falsehood, only another attempt to justify a norm rather than to create an excellence using similar understanding of the function of information that he calls language.