Curt Doolittle's *Propertarianism*

Been watching this guy, then saw the term Propertarianism and was sure I've seen it somewhere already.



I have to say I like very much what I hear so far, and intend to explore further.

Essentially it seems to be that propertarianism is the "fixed" version of libertarianism, or at least it fixes some of its flaws, such as the idea that we all exist in a vacuum where our actions have no effect on others.

It also seems to be more of a way of looking at things, a method that looks at the world in terms of costs/benefits and incentives, than an actual ideology. Ideologies contain a lot of "oughts" (preferences), propertarianism merely points out your "oughts" might conflict with somebody else's "oughts", the possible costs and benefits, and how to set up the system of incentives to accomplish some preferred state of affairs.

Autsider wrote:

Essentially it seems to be that propertarianism is the "fixed" version of libertarianism, or at least it fixes some of its flaws, such as the idea that we all exist in a vacuum where our actions have no effect on others.

It also seems to be more of a way of looking at things, a method that looks at the world in terms of costs/benefits and incentives, than an actual ideology. Ideologies contain a lot of "oughts" (preferences), propertarianism merely points out your "oughts" might conflict with somebody else's "oughts", the possible costs and benefits, and how to set up the system of incentives to accomplish some preferred state of affairs.

In one of these videos I posted Doolittle says his method is "libertarian, but it's not Rothbardian."

Another way to say it is that it is an aristocratic/pagan/Aryan outlook, opposed to the Abrahamic.  He also says as much, if you look into him.

The ultimate way he (and Eli) state it, is that it's Natural Law, pure and simple, discovered by the empirical method and expressed in empirical and operational terms.  

It's good fun that Satyr says "Doolittle leaves me cold."  Seems appropriate.  Nevertheless I find easy consilience between Satyr's thought and Doolittle's.  That's why I shared it here.  

Anyone who disagrees or sees incompatibilities, by all means share what you think.

Eli's latest video goes down well with a hearty evening meal:

Any approach to natural order, whether it be from the perspective of economics, psychology, spirituality, using the appropriate terminology, is on the side I am on.

curt wrote:

---"Curt: Whats the most inspiring philosophical text you've read?"---

(a) Inspiration is something I don't really need, which is why I don't see philosophy as self-help but decidability.

(c) I don't read philosophy except to understand how previous generations of thinkers have failed. (really). Instead, I read science and art history, both of which are *demonstrated*, not fantasized (as is philosophy). In fact, I still read philosophers and generally thing "OMG this is sh-t".

(b) The only books I can recall inspiring me were those of history, particularly military history, and within that group 'Strategy" by Liddel-Hart, and the history of the Mongols. I consider my study of the mongols my first really independent research program outside of arts and sciences.

(e) And whether you consider Sun Tsu, Alexander, Caesar, Machiavelli, Napoleon, Clausewitz, and Keegan philosophy or military strategy and history is a question of bias in categorization.

(d) I can only remember being affected heavily by Hayek's two papers on knowledge, less so his work on law, and more so Popper and Kuhn's work on scientific epistemology. In my understanding of history I have combined nietzsche's aryanism, hayek's knowledge and law, weber/mises/simmel's calculation problem, completed popper's epistemology, and Hoppe's reduction of all social science to statements of property (tort).

(e) In aesthetics I was affected by rand's romantic manifesto in no small part because my university's art college was based upon it - and it stuck with me HARD.

(f) You might call Simmel's "The Philosophy of Money" a book on philosophy or work of social science. I deem it the latter. And I read Weber, Durkhiem, and Pareto to understand economics for the same reason.

(g) You might call Nietzche's Birth of Tragedy philosophy but I consider it social science. I respect nietzsche but I don't read him for philosophy or inspiration (I find german literature ridiculous), but I did try to understand how he failed to produce a more scientific program for his insight into heroic ethics.

SO WHAT I HEAR FROM PEOPLE WHEN THEY ASK ME ABOUT PHILOSOPHY:

is there a literature in ordinary language that I can read as a shortcut to understanding? And the answer is I don't think so. And I am pretty sure you will learn more from following me for two years than you will learn from any study of philosophy. Not because I"m particularly good, but because I'm actually a scientist, and most philosophers have been tragic.

I started with history, then science, then artificial intelligence, and then economics. And so my 'route' to wisdom was scientific not literary.

cheers

thoughts? a pretty radical statement, not sure what to make of it

Doolittle has always come off as particularly dry in his approach, he could be correct if he approaches problems scientifically and as things to 'resolve'. Science is setting up systems upon systems of understanding, mostly quantitatively. There are problems with psychological/sociological theories and disagreements which could make his 'system' misguided. Propertarianism right now would be up against the Identitarianism of the political left. Property and Identity are tied, and property has to approach ethics through the framework of property - which has an 'identitiarian' and material aspect; synthesis for explanation. This can be effective for saying a lion has a particular acreage of 'ownership', but so do the birds, or insects in the ground, reside and have their own 'territory' within that.

Understanding, in a way that's utilizable, is generally better than any other relation. Philosophy means to be a 'friend of wisdom'. Understanding itself does not imply a relation of 'friendship', only that there is -a- relation with wisdom. One can understand a pattern but have no intelligence enough to realize its usages, or adapt to it. In fact, sometimes understanding can appear to lead to a rejection, since it cannot be handled.

More masculine minds needs more laconic, pragmatic, direct approaches.
The more feminine mind needs most to be left to the imagination. Flirting is insinuating, allowing the other to interpret the exchange in whatever way satisfies some deep desire.

Metaphors can also be sued to hide this pragmatic directness beneath imagery, insinuations, allusions, not to permit any interpretation but to weed out those you do not want to see what you are saying.
Leaving the escape of deniability as a last defence against those who will turn on you if they truly understood you.
The problem with this method is that is leaves much up to subjective interpretations, permitting every imbecile out there to project into the text whatever he or she wishes.

It's not hard to justify any theory, any interpretation, if you have a grasp of the language and a creative imagination.
If your motive is to become a guru you can even tailor it to a specific target audience, attracting them to your interpretations.
Even a lie can be made to seem true, if there's a willingness in other to want to believe.

The hardest part of philosophy is describing world as all perceive it, so that they see what has always been right in front of their eyes.
But the world does not change so fast as to demand a different insight.
So, philosophy has become a matter of politics, and psychological insights.
All it deals with now is not world, but how man relates with world and with his fellow man.
Ethics, idealism, aesthetics, politics, psychology, sociology are now the centre pieces of modern philosophy.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is excellent. I have no noteworthy objections, only minor disagreements over semantics. F.e. I don't think we necessarily need to get rid of words like "prove" in everyday language if we agree that prove doesn't mean "demonstrate X absolutely and irrevocably" but instead means "demonstrate that X is the best explanation of things we have so far".

Doolittle on Eric Orwoll's channel.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

To the extent I understood it, this is good too. Especially:

Curt Doolittle wrote:

PROPERTARIANISM’S POSITION IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY

Propertarianism is an answer to, refutation of, and solution to, the invention of lying: Cantor’s restoration of mathematical platonism, Marx’s pseudoscientific economics and sociology, Boaz’s pseudo-scientific anthropology and sociology, Freud’s pseudo-scientific psychology, the Frankfurt School’s pseudo-scientific aesthetics, and the French Catholic via Rousseau, and Postmoderns including Foucault, Baudrillard, Derrida, and an academy of followers propagating the . These thinkers constitute the main actors in the Counter-Enlightenment: the Second Abrahamic attack on Western Civilization.

1. The first fictionalist attack was the west asian caucasian invention of scripture: authoritarian mystical religion as a successor to explanatory mythology.
2. The first Abrahamic fictionalist attack was the fabrication of authoritarian mysticism with the promise of utopia after death by the professionalization of lying about scripture;
3. The second Abrahamic Fictionalist attack is the pseudo-scientific (Ashkenazi), pseudo-rational (German), and literary, meaning pseudo-moral (French) attack on Western Civilization which promised the underclasses not only an escape from evolutionary and material constraints, but a utopia of consumption and a permanently expanding technology that would end all wants – using new mass media for the industrialization of lying.

Propertarianism’s purpose is to end all lying in all its elaborate forms within the informational commons: including the supernatural, pseudo-rational, the pseudo-mathematical, and the pseudoscientific.

AutSider wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is excellent. I have no noteworthy objections, only minor disagreements over semantics. F.e. I don't think we necessarily need to get rid of words like "prove" in everyday language if we agree that prove doesn't mean "demonstrate X absolutely and irrevocably" but instead means "demonstrate that X is the best explanation of things we have so far".

He's a good read but I am not sure about his rejection of JTB and his endorsement of Popperian falsificationism. I think this is a mistake -- and an unnecessary one. The way I see it, Plato's theory of knowledge is nothing more than a primitive attempt to discriminate between different kinds of beliefs. A belief is simply what someone thinks is true. A belief is said to be justified if there are good reasons to adopt it. Put another way, a belief is said to be justified if it can be, or is, logically derived from a set of existing beliefs (i.e. premises.) If your belief is just a random guess, then it isn't a justified belief because it isn't formed properly. It might be a true belief but it is certainly not a justified belief (which also means it is not a JTB.) A true belief is simply a belief that corresponds to reality. For example, if I believe it will rain the next Sunday and if I observe it is raining the next Sunday, then I can say my belief is a true belief. To the extent that such a belief is based on a large body of evidence, I can also say it is a justified belief and thus a JTB. That's all JTB is. It's a pretty decent theory of knowledge.

Popper is a different story. He was a stubborn opponent of inductive reasoning which earned him a place in Alan Sokal's and Jean Bricmont's book Fashionable Nonsense. He (and also Peirce) had this strange idea that knowledge isn't logically derived but is actually a free invention of human mind (Popper called it "conjecture", Peirce called it "abduction") that is then subjected to attempts at falsification. I can understand why such a theory is attractive -- it has an evolutionary appeal. And I don't reject the theory itself. I reject the idea that the theory is incompatible with the idea that human knowledge is largely a product of inductive reasoning.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

A belief is simply what someone thinks is true. A belief is said to be justified if there are good reasons to adopt it. Put another way, a belief is said to be justified if it can be, or is, logically derived from a set of existing beliefs (i.e. premises.) If your belief is just a random guess, then it isn't a justified belief because it isn't formed properly. It might be a true belief but it is certainly not a justified belief (which also means it is not a JTB.) A true belief is simply a belief that corresponds to reality. For example, if I believe it will rain the next Sunday and if I observe it is raining the next Sunday, then I can say my belief is a true belief. To the extent that such a belief is based on a large body of evidence, I can also say it is a justified belief and thus a JTB. That's all JTB is. It's a pretty decent theory of knowledge.

What's the difference then between believing in something and knowing something is true? The way you word it a justified belief is almost the same thing as "knowing" or being certain of the truth of an idea. I always thought belief was more wanting or supposing something to be truth. Or taking it on faith. I think people believe when they haven't arrived at knowing.

With faith there is an acknowledged component of wanting this something to be true.
Knowing does not necessarily have this aspect and it's generally not as intertwined with this desire for it to be true.

perpetualburn wrote:

Magnus Anderson wrote:

A belief is simply what someone thinks is true. A belief is said to be justified if there are good reasons to adopt it. Put another way, a belief is said to be justified if it can be, or is, logically derived from a set of existing beliefs (i.e. premises.) If your belief is just a random guess, then it isn't a justified belief because it isn't formed properly. It might be a true belief but it is certainly not a justified belief (which also means it is not a JTB.) A true belief is simply a belief that corresponds to reality. For example, if I believe it will rain the next Sunday and if I observe it is raining the next Sunday, then I can say my belief is a true belief. To the extent that such a belief is based on a large body of evidence, I can also say it is a justified belief and thus a JTB. That's all JTB is. It's a pretty decent theory of knowledge.

What's the difference then between believing in something and knowing something is true?  The way you word it a justified belief is almost the same thing as "knowing" or being certain of the truth of an idea.  I always thought belief was more wanting or supposing something to be truth.  Or taking it on faith.   I think people believe when they haven't arrived at knowing.

That's a matter of semantics, isn't? In the context of Plato's theory of knowledge, the word "belief" is defined to mean "what someone thinks is true but is not necessarily so". It's a matter of conviction. You define the word differently. You define it to mean something more specific. You define it to mean "a thought that is adopted because it gives us comfort". You can call that "faith" or whatever you want. Personally, I am less interested in language (i.e. word-concept relations) and more interested in discriminating between different types of concepts. Plato said that knowledge is "justified true belief". Not any belief but only the kind of belief that is justified and true. And yes, for him, knowledge is a type of belief. So a thing can be a belief and a piece of knowledge at the same time without there being a logical contradiction.

I don't know if this is real. Sounds like a joke, "When your daughter shows exceptional taste in men" LOL.

It doesn't discredit everything he's ever written even if it is real, but an ad hom fallacy has never been more tempting.

Anyways, here's some articles on violence.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I dont take him seriously...he claims to have invented and constructed a system that he himself in his own words literally compares to a breakthrough in human thought comparable to Occidental Renaissance and claims other things like that his system of thought is the only one that is a correct, naturalistic way of thinking and any disagreement with him is due to inability to accept that your biases and truths are being deconstructed by him etc. yet he only has bits and pieces scattered around the net and his website that really are often made up of no more than 10 sentences and not even a single booklet or a book etc...

I think I read he has aspergers. His writing is indeed a bit strange to me, like we're not on the same wavelength. And he does come off as arrogant.

But his personality aside, it's hard to say he's wrong about things.

Also, I recommend people take a look at the MEGA link in this post: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Even if you aren't interested in Propertarianism there are tons of books there, from Aristotle to Evola to Kevin MacDonald and more.

I haven't read anything by Doolittle.
If he were proposing some system on how to win at gambling or something like that then that would be more interesting to me, lol.
But seriously, it's too dry for me and a bit gay to say it directly.
Like Plato is also gay, ya know.

I mean I understand that there are tremendous gaps in peoples realizable intellectual developments and the ones that actually are and there might be a genius that I come across that will blow the intellectual platform that I have built for myself away like winds in the storm but his argument is kind of like Freuds, if everything is sexual then any refutation of that fact is sexual too, so...if you claim a revolutionary system of thought and a way of saving the West but then dont write anything extensive and conclusive and sufficiently explanatory and then when being pressed to elaborate and provide evidence for your claims you either ignore or attack with stuff like 'you need at least 130iq to make sense of it and a specific training in logic and computer sciences etc.' how can anybody who doesnt understand refute it???
Plus if you watch his video with Sunic and McDonald he keeps trying to get all their points back to his own 'system' and these very well educated and intelligent guys just ignore him or pat him politely and move from it back to their points so it cant be just me dumb idiot who isn't really impressed by whatever he is offering.

There is a certain gayness to institutional language that has no growl or attitude behind it, accompanied by the characters that impose it on themselves with masochistic joy. Silence or laconic speaking is more masculine. The over-reliance on language tends to suggest an LCD nature. Using a human universal medium to negotiate your flesh through a world. Anyone can talk with ease, not all can fight. Long bureaucratic codes like the Talmud to artificially account and categorize, with all the depth and spirit of a geeky record keeper.

Heidegger is an example of a laconic, along with Spartans.

AutSider wrote:

I think I read he has aspergers.

I read that Da Vinci, Mozart, Newton, Nietzsche, Tesla, Russell, Wittgenstein, Einstein and Steve Jobs all suffered from some form of autism. If you're into philosophy and/or science, the chances of you being somewhere on the autistic spectrum are something like 99.99%. Whatever it means to be on the autistic spectrum.

Slaughtz wrote:

Heidegger is an example of a laconic

What exactly is laconic about Heidegger? He's a textbook obscurantist. Lots and lots of fancy terms.

Anfang wrote:

If he were proposing some system on how to win at gambling or something like that then that would be more interesting to me, lol.

I can give you a system on how to win at gambling - be the house, don't be the player.

I think it comes down to preference. I prefer reading insights that are timeless and grounded in what is perceptible, which necessarily involves scientific or at least somewhat technical language. For example, I mentioned Evola earlier - I tried reading his Revolt Against the Modern World recently and got bored within the first few pages. He started talking about heaven and earth, invisible things, gods, Hinduism and Buddhism etc. I'm not interested in magical thinking or the specifics of some culture/tradition. I think it's possible to get the same/better information elsewhere, and in less text and a format less saturated with unnecessary fantasies about Gods and invisible entities. But to each their own.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

I read that Da Vinci, Mozart, Newton, Nietzsche, Tesla, Russell, Wittgenstein, Einstein and Steve Jobs all suffered from some form of autism. If you're into philosophy and/or science, the chances of you being somewhere on the autistic spectrum are something like 99.99%. Whatever it means to be on the autistic spectrum.

The last sentence is key. I wouldn't put much trust into (((modern psychology))). It considers all forms of masculine thinking pathological, either being "autistic" if it isn't too threatening to the (((modern social order))), or "psychopathic/sociopathic" if it is.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It doesn't seem to have any actual basis. I've even heard "Stockholm Syndrome" used as a diagnosis for war brides who have grown attached to and submitted to men who conquered and took them. Like one of the most natural and healthy female behaviors ever, submitting to the demonstrably powerful and superior men, is some sort of illness that needs to be corrected. (((Feminism))) would probably agree though.

In short a lot of it is just attempts to pathologize behaviors and ways of thinking which are against modern social norms.

Funny how being a whiny, lying, emotional bitch isn't a disorder, huh?

Magnus Anderson wrote:

Slaughtz wrote:

Heidegger is an example of a laconic

What exactly is laconic about Heidegger? He's a textbook obscurantist. Lots and lots of fancy terms.

An aside to this topic, but his actual proposed behavior and his behavior, which is silence before inauthenticity to one's Being and the reconnection of words to their meaning. No obscurity, only proper silence and treatment, according to Being, of what he cannot show kinship with.

He did not yet succeed in becoming a fully practiced laconic with all aspects, but saw it as a task for coming philosophers. Silence was the replacement for expressing easily misinterpreted or misunderstood language or phrasing.

AutSider wrote:

In short a lot of it is just attempts to pathologize behaviors and ways of thinking which are against modern social norms.

Funny how being a whiny, lying, emotional bitch isn't a disorder, huh?

Yes. Being a homosexual is not considered a disorder (since 1973) and being a transsexual is not considered a disorder except for when transsexuals suffer distress due to social stigma (a recent invention.) On the other hand, being a psychopath or an autistic individual is a disorder whether or not the person is distressed.

You were right. Curt is indeed an aspie.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Curt Doolittle wrote:

• I was born on the very edge of the autistic spectrum with Asperger’s mild impediment to empathy, and a deeper case of the Autistic’s obsessive thinking – such that, put to good use, it is a benefit to me much more so than a handicap – I view it as a ‘gift’. But in childhood, I paid the usual social price of being ‘different’ (a nerd). And I have had a very difficult time ‘taming’ that obsessive gift. I try to help fellow aspies understand themselves when possible.

• As a child I read encyclopedias – often multiple times. The neutral point of view appealed to my autistic sensibilities. I think scientifically because I have no other choice really. Empathy is pretty useless for me. I had to make due with loyalty.

• I did reasonably well in school, and enjoyed it, but found I operated much better if I worked at my own pace which is somewhat slower than that of my peers. Since that time I have learned that many of us in philosophy share this very ‘skeptical’ and pensive method of functioning. The continental academy is more suitable to the autistic mind than the American which is more concerned with social integration into the empire than learning.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Since human intellectual advantage is the result of pedomorphism(neoteny, juvenilization) giving us more time to mature.

Since the variations between the races are largely in the success or failure at pedomorphism given the climate.

Since the male matures more slowly than the female, and that autism appears to be the exacerbation of that male (compartmentalized) brain.

Since the autistic mind has 60%+ more neurons, and likewise an equally high density of branches due to less neural pruning.

Since the autistic brain continues to grow in the prefrontal cortex during the first year of growth (and there is less pruning).

Since in my experience, as an aspie, most of us simply take longer to develop ‘mature’ minds, because we are less dependent on genetic intuition, and more dependent upon reason.

Since aspies get along wonderfully with one another.
It’s my opinion that ASPINESS much like benevolent psychopathy, and greater neoteny is the beginning of human speciation.

The principle issue is that it is cheap to organize by emotion, and expensive to organize by fact.

So aspies (homo sapiens-aspie) are more expensive than prior generations of human. but then, each generation of human has been less expensive and less productive than the current version of human.

Again. Insulation allows for speciation.

Fight to speciate.

Slaughtz wrote:

An aside to this topic, but his actual proposed behavior and his behavior, which is silence before inauthenticity to one's Being and the reconnection of words to their meaning. No obscurity, only proper silence and treatment, according to Being, of what he cannot show kinship with.

He did not yet succeed in becoming a fully practiced laconic with all aspects, but saw it as a task for coming philosophers. Silence was the replacement for expressing easily misinterpreted or misunderstood language or phrasing.

But it is precisely laconic speech that is easily misinterpreted -- it relies heavily on context. Laconic speech has the advantage of being inexpensive (short sentences are easy and fast to construct) but it has the disadvantage of being vague (short sentences derive most of their meaning from context.) If you want to make sure that what you say is not misinterpreted, you have to be very specific, and that means not laconic. (Bertrand Russell was probably the master of this craft.) I am pretty sure that Spartan speech wasn't concise because Spartans wanted to prevent others from misinterpreting it but because they wanted to focus all of their energy on military ability. Talking was seen as a waste of time.

Nietzsche's style is laconic and I think we'll all agree that he is easy to misinterpret. (Some even think that Nietzsche is supposed to be interpreted in any number of different ways, that this openness to interpretation is precisely the point of his philosophy.)

He who writes using a relatively context-independent language, who is explicit rather than implict, he's very difficult to misinterpret. I think that's one of the key differences between the analytic school (Bertrand Russell) and the continental school (Heidegger.) Sure, continental philosophers are by no means laconic, but their writings have the kind of vagueness that laconic speech does.

Consider mystics. Very laconic yet very obscure. Wittgenstein too was a mystic (in his own way.)

First..., I'd not rise this issue as I really dislike gossip-(y) talks and I'm completely fine with some narrow minded group of nerds doing their thing without having an assurance that what they are doing is jerking themselves off and using philosophy to escape into worlds with hierarchies built by them for them or actually doing something so intelligence intensive that I simply can't participate and reap benefits, even if the topic they are dealing with thematically is of great interest and use to myself. I raised it only because he began to make ridiculous claims for himself and when I pressed him to explain his 'definitions' and the conclusions he derives from them he always delayed and replied that it would take very long to explain and he will have to write up about it later(never happened) and there aren't any write-ups available on the internet from him on any of the key principles of his philosophy ergo I became suspicious and since this is a philosophy forum here...I shared it.  
Regarding the topic itself philosophically and pragmatically...
There is no way to make sure you wont be misunderstood, ever and despite whatever forms and techniques of language you implement in your writing because language is in its nature a completely interaction dependent form. Actually you will always be misunderstood to a degree... Human language is a completely abstract thing(besides its biological roots in humans and its manifesting spawns that come to be through interaction from humans through humans)and as such it surrenders to whoever intercepts it and uses it; there is nothing independent or co-dependent besides humans in it and with it. Humans react to language, animals can react to your voice, its tonality etc. but nothing else, the 'world'...doesn't react to you, you react to the world. This is my first issue with his(C.D.)philosophy(or rather not even it itself because I give him the benefit of the doubt here gladly) but his conclusions...(namely, that he will save or that our civilization can be saved by implementing(doesn't mention how)strict usage of language in relation to the criteria his philosophy dictates)...this is not even a philosophical issue here but a purely politically-pragmatic one since such a thing already exists and its law(and we know how people apply to law and how much it would matter if not for the organs that enforce it).
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Maths, the most abstract language, the most laconic, the most precise and least open to misinterpretation relies most on human abstracting and is simultaneously most and least open to manipulation as it has no context and doesn't mean anything...its advantage is its disadvantage and shows how impossible making language smear, and Jew proof is.

Spartanic laconic wasn't even a language but a teeth showing grim...like a Tigers roar or growl, they measured and interacted with their environment through it and because of it and because it was completely context dependent and most open to misinterpretation it was impossible to misinterpret it as it was an interaction on a direct, physical level, not abstract.
Also Ne. wasnt laconic...he simply wrote his work very ill and saved his energy by writing metaphors, he to me appears very clear and objective despite his poetic language(though I havent red all of his stuff).

polishyouth wrote:

There is no way to make sure you wont be misunderstood, ever and despite whatever forms and techniques of language you implement in your writing because language is in its nature a completely interaction dependent form. Actually you will always be misunderstood to a degree... Human language is a completely abstract thing(besides its biological roots in humans and its manifesting spawns that come to be through interaction from humans through humans)and as such it surrenders to whoever intercepts it and uses it; there is nothing independent or co-dependent besides humans in it and with it. Humans react to language, animals can react to your voice, its tonality etc. but nothing else, the 'world'...doesn't react to you, you react to the world.

My point is a very simple one: it is much more difficult to misinterpret an in-depth description than it is to misinterpret a crude description that uses fewer words. Note that I never said it is impossible.

It's the same with reality. It's much easier to be mistaken if your sample size is smaller.

Quote :

Maths, the most abstract language, the most laconic, the most precise and least open to misinterpretation relies most on human abstracting and is simultaneously most and least open to manipulation as it has no context and doesn't mean anything...its advantage is its disadvantage and shows how impossible making language smear, and Jew proof is.

I can agree that maths is cold, monotonic, dry and dull. I can also agree that it is precise (however, as many have noted, Doolittle including, maths is infected with platonism, so there are lots of obscure mathematical terms.) But do I agree that mathematics is laconic? It's a difficult question. I do, however, know that I canno agree with the claim that mathematics is without context and that it does not mean anything (that's probably true of pure mathematics, though.)

Quote :

Also Ne. wasnt laconic...he simply wrote his work very ill and saved his energy by writing metaphors, he to me appears very clear and objective despite his poetic language(though I havent red all of his stuff).

That's the purpose of laconic speech: to save energy.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

An aphorism (from Greek ἀφορισμός: aphorismos, denoting "delimitation", "distinction", and "definition") is a concise, terse, laconic, and/or memorable expression of a general truth or principle.

My opinion of Doolittle is that he's relatively laconic and clear in his speach. Much more clear and much more laconic than, say, Heidegger.

Quote :

My point is a very simple one: it is much more difficult to misinterpret an in-depth description than it is to misinterpret a crude description that uses fewer words. Note that I never said it is impossible.

It's the same with reality. It's much easier to be mistaken if your sample size is smaller.

My point relates to Curts point, that you can somehow(and he will)construct the language and the arguments within it so that they cant be purposefully misinterpreted and taken advantage off by parasitical tribes praying on gossip and truth; I have sent Slau. links where Curt literally advocates getting rid of 'is' and 'isms' as an attempt at that, he literally thinks you can block false by language itself not enforcement of proper interpretation of the language like law operates. So I'd say making a more detailed and comprehensive argument makes it harder to MISUNDERSTAND(given the will to understand not misunderstand is there already) not MISINTERPRET since language is banally easy to misinterpret however it is used due to what I have written in the post before(on its nature). Whether its better to speak laconically or comprehensively to aid understanding in peoples with good intentions is another argument that doesn't seem so obvious to me but that is given different contexts of the applications of language not the specific instance to which you are referring to with which I can agree intuitively, though I'd have to think about that deeper to come to proper conclusions because to me it appears a little more complicated that it appears upon immediate inspection.

Quote :

Cytat :
Also Ne. wasnt laconic...he simply wrote his work very ill and saved his energy by writing metaphors, he to me appears very clear and objective despite his poetic language(though I havent red all of his stuff).

That's the purpose of laconic speech: to save energy.

Yes, I take it back, understanding Laconism in this context, Nietszche was laconic for sure, but not exclusively and not stylistically and linguistically but operationally(as in developing deep and broad metaphors and principles and masking his wisdom before initiated).

polishyouth wrote:

I have sent Slau. links where Curt literally advocates getting rid of 'is' and 'isms' as an attempt at that, he literally thinks you can block false by language itself not enforcement of proper interpretation of the language like law operates.

Why does he want to get rid of "is" and "ism"s? Can you share those links?