October 30th, 2018 11:25 AM
“CURT: IS YOUR LANGUAGE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC?”
(no, but it’s a very good question that deserves an answer)
—-“I enjoy your humanist stance Curt Doolittle and with most of your ideas I find myself in concordance. My only caveat with your performance is this psuedo-scientific language – almost every other word is some phrase or term of references, especially from the realm of psychology. “— Christian Kalafut
Christian,
Excellent (not unique, but rare) and worthy criticism. Well done.
This (vocabulary) is always a problem when trying to provide the only non-nonsensical model of philosophy, which is to reorganize properties, categories, relations, and values in response to advances in knowledge.
Every theorist (‘Reformer’ is my prefer term) who attempts to increase the coherence between science and vernacular, across the fields is faced with the challenge of new terms (neologisms), redefining terms, and preserving terms, and doing so sufficiently that he’s free of criticism.
To unite all the fields I had to create a common language, and so I appropriated the terms from each that were the ‘least wrong’ and created definitions in series to deflate them.
I rely on one spectrum from cognitive science (psychosis <-> autism) by Baron Cohen, and I map demonstrated interests (that which we demonstrate we treat as property by defending), -> to moral bias (Hadit), -> to stages of the prey drive, -> to reward systems, -> to personality traits, -> to gender differences in brain structure resulting in that spectrum.
This changes the content (model) of the behavioral vocabulary in ‘psychology’ from projection(imagination via sympathy and conformity) to demonstration (observation: science, and a division of cognitive labor). Thereby reforming psychology from projection to demonstration to physical construction and operation (neural economy)
This cognitive division of labor is what I use as the basis of reforming ‘sociology’ under what I call Compatibilism(market) rather than Equality(monopoly) – and the competition between the classes, which serves as a further extension of perception and cognition to the group, wherein the group performs ‘calculation’ of ‘the good (the interest of the polity)’ by continuous tests of voluntary cooperation (reciprocity) – thereby EXPANDING the neural economy from the individual to the group, tribe, nation, civilization, mankind.
And to ameliorate this competition between individuals and groups at all scales i use international law (demonstrated means of voluntary cooperation) under reciprocity as the ‘equals sign’ of human action. This results in ‘Natural Law’ as the means of assisting in calculation (cooperation at scale).
And it changes from the via positiva of conformity and suppression of individual preference to preserve costly cooperation (antiquity) to the via negativa of conflict suppression and increase in individual preference to take advantage of cheap cooperation (modernity).
This changes the discipline we call sociology to observation of agents with partial information thereby uniting psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy – providing a single language and model of all human behavior from the neurological to the international.
As far as I know, further increases in the precision of this model will have no impact on decidability provided by it just as newtonian physics is sufficient for all human scale decidability despite increases in precision provided by einstein physics at prior and post human scale. And this is sufficient because humans can only act at human scale, regardless of their perceptions.
So, while it is takes a HUGE vocabulary reformation (models of properties, categories, relations, and values) to change from the projections to demonstrations, and from monopoly to markets of behavior, and from static consensus to evolutionary calculation – thereby altering our ENTIRE body of knowledge to reflect the model of ECONOMICS(darwin/markets/equilibrium) that is true, rather than MATHEMATICS (christian/monopolies/equalities) that is false.
So yes, as always, in every era (rational(Greek), empirical(early british), scientific(Darwin – european), technological(Turing-Chomsky-anglo american), and now ‘economic-neurological’ (me)), we require a reformation of our network of ideas, and yes it is a costly reformation, because it requires a lot of re-learning.
I don’t claim to be a great communicator. I just claim to be correct. ã
—“My only complaint aside, you’re very interesting and I would love to chat with you!”—
Any time. ã
—“Final ?: Have you read Barzun?”—
I don’t’ find essayists interesting, because i am painfully empirical, and while I can absorb information endlessly I get very ‘tired’ with sentimental prose including value judgements loading and framing. So while I know of some of his ideas, I don’t find them helpful at my level of inquiry (free association, reason, calculation, and computation).
In general I just read science and history and unfortunately not only have I lost the ability to suspend disbelief in fiction, I have lost the ability to suspend judgement in essay form, and in both cases, I find it tedious and painful (like listening to gossip.) That isn’t a good thing but it’s a consequence of doing my work for so many years.
So that’s why I tell people, I do science, write law, using the rhetorical structure of philosophy and do so to end deceit by pseudoscience (sophism of the technical), philosophy(sophism of the rational) and theology (sophism of the mythological),
Cheers.