[I] can tell your moral code and political preference by the method you use to argue, as much as I can the moral bias of your arguments. And I’m still surprised at myself, despite knowing that (other than conservatives) people are morally blind, I try to reason with people. Now the fact is, that I know when I’m doing it, that it’s impossible. Like anyone else I hope to do a little education – to provide a light into the moral darkness. But, my objective is actually to learn how to state my arguments in a multitude of fashions, such that they explain those different areas of moral blindness. I know I cannot convince others to change their moral bias. It’s genetic. But I can consistently improve my arguments. My arguments are prescriptive. I know that is impossible. What I can do is construct institutions that allow us to cooperate despite these moral biases. But in the end, we are other than gene-machines, using very elaborate language to justify our reproductive strategies.
Form: Short Note
-
Categories of Knowledge: Improving on Mokyr
Wondering…. Hmmm. I don’t like Mokyr’s categories of knowledge. I tend to state them as “knowledge of construction” and “knowledge of use”. Now he’s been trying to talk about the knowledge economy, so only usable knowledge is meaningful to him. But I think this is the correct expanded hierarchy. 0) Knowledge of identity. (we are aware of it) 1) Knowledge of consequence. (what changes in state we can observe) 2) Knowledge of use. (how to put it under out control to change states) 3) Knowledge of construction. (what its made of and how its made) Curt
-
Categories of Knowledge: Improving on Mokyr
Wondering…. Hmmm. I don’t like Mokyr’s categories of knowledge. I tend to state them as “knowledge of construction” and “knowledge of use”. Now he’s been trying to talk about the knowledge economy, so only usable knowledge is meaningful to him. But I think this is the correct expanded hierarchy. 0) Knowledge of identity. (we are aware of it) 1) Knowledge of consequence. (what changes in state we can observe) 2) Knowledge of use. (how to put it under out control to change states) 3) Knowledge of construction. (what its made of and how its made) Curt
-
References For My Fellow Aspie-Tarian Libertarians
[A]s far as I know I’m the only one arguing that the autistic spectrum should be described as the “solipsistic-autistic spectrum”, but I might argue that I’m just using loaded language to demonstrate and allow us to criticize the failure of the female side of the spectrum as well as the male. That is because women are are as comfortable using solipsistic arguments as we are using autistic. However, I’m pretty sure that the basic thesis is correct. That is, that most of these brain states are produce by in-utero chemistry. Baron-Cohen, S. 1995. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ______. 2002. “The Extreme Male Brain Theory of Autism.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6:248–54. ______. 2009. “Autism: The Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) Theory.” In “The Year in Cognitive Neuroscience,” special issue of Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1156:68–80. Lucas, P., and A. Sheeran. 2006. “Asperger’s Syndrome and the Eccentricity and Genius of Jeremy Bentham.” Journal of Bentham Studies 8:1–20.
-
References For My Fellow Aspie-Tarian Libertarians
[A]s far as I know I’m the only one arguing that the autistic spectrum should be described as the “solipsistic-autistic spectrum”, but I might argue that I’m just using loaded language to demonstrate and allow us to criticize the failure of the female side of the spectrum as well as the male. That is because women are are as comfortable using solipsistic arguments as we are using autistic. However, I’m pretty sure that the basic thesis is correct. That is, that most of these brain states are produce by in-utero chemistry. Baron-Cohen, S. 1995. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ______. 2002. “The Extreme Male Brain Theory of Autism.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6:248–54. ______. 2009. “Autism: The Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) Theory.” In “The Year in Cognitive Neuroscience,” special issue of Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1156:68–80. Lucas, P., and A. Sheeran. 2006. “Asperger’s Syndrome and the Eccentricity and Genius of Jeremy Bentham.” Journal of Bentham Studies 8:1–20.
-
“Doolittle is the Moldbug of Facebook”
[W]ell, I have no idea if that’s meant as a compliment or an insult. Of course, I consider myself part of the Dark Enlightenment (NeoReactionary movement). Mencius uses continental arguments which frustrate the hell out of me, since I’m trying to reform libertarian reasoning and formal institutions by basing it instead on unloaded, objective language of the ratio-scientific method. But that said, it’s a fair association to make, whether compliment or criticism. Just surprised me and made me laugh. Photo: “Doolittle is the Moldbug of Facebook”
COMMENTS Andriy Drozda, Eric Blankenburg, Eric Field and 5 others like this. Michael Pattinson Ha ha ha James Santagata lol Jason Conway My immediate association between Doolittle and Moldbug was the word ‘prolific’. Curt Doolittle Jason… Yeah, I thought the same thing. lol
-
“Doolittle is the Moldbug of Facebook”
[W]ell, I have no idea if that’s meant as a compliment or an insult. Of course, I consider myself part of the Dark Enlightenment (NeoReactionary movement). Mencius uses continental arguments which frustrate the hell out of me, since I’m trying to reform libertarian reasoning and formal institutions by basing it instead on unloaded, objective language of the ratio-scientific method. But that said, it’s a fair association to make, whether compliment or criticism. Just surprised me and made me laugh. Photo: “Doolittle is the Moldbug of Facebook”
COMMENTS Andriy Drozda, Eric Blankenburg, Eric Field and 5 others like this. Michael Pattinson Ha ha ha James Santagata lol Jason Conway My immediate association between Doolittle and Moldbug was the word ‘prolific’. Curt Doolittle Jason… Yeah, I thought the same thing. lol
-
Families as The Unit of Cultural Production In A Civilization.
While Paternalism (headmanship) has been universal, when insurance and gathering were more important than productivity and warfare, matrilinealism seemed to determine what limited property was important (relations) and what inheritance and therefore ownership. But when productivity became more important than insurance, patrilinealism seemed to develop into the primary social order determining what increasingly complex property was important (livestock, territory, agrarian production, built capital). Now that women can seek rents via the state, we are seeing property return to communalism and men attempt to preserve their control over it. Without families, I do not yet understand how civilization can function any more than I can understand how an economy can function without prices and incentives.
-
Families as The Unit of Cultural Production In A Civilization.
While Paternalism (headmanship) has been universal, when insurance and gathering were more important than productivity and warfare, matrilinealism seemed to determine what limited property was important (relations) and what inheritance and therefore ownership. But when productivity became more important than insurance, patrilinealism seemed to develop into the primary social order determining what increasingly complex property was important (livestock, territory, agrarian production, built capital). Now that women can seek rents via the state, we are seeing property return to communalism and men attempt to preserve their control over it. Without families, I do not yet understand how civilization can function any more than I can understand how an economy can function without prices and incentives.
-
Come Home To Aristocratic Egalitarianism – Leave The Ghetto
[I]’m an aristocratic egalitarian. I am willing to grant full spectrum Propertarian property rights to all who are equally willing to fight for it in word and deed to the best of their ability. That is the ancient source of liberty: the aristocratic egalitarianism of the indo-europeans. Libertarians from the Rothbardian movement are largely a collection of ‘pussy-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’, ‘stupid-tarians’, ‘aspie-tarians’, ‘libertines’, and ‘dishonest-cheat-itarians’ who can be divided into two camps: those fooled by obscurantism, and those who are naturally liars, cheats, and dishonest. Ditch ghetto libertarianism as the immoral dishonest scheme that it is. Come home to aristocratic egalitarianism. Take liberty by force, for moral reasons, rather than beg for it for immoral reasons.