by Chris Moyer
(updated: added chris’ name. not sure how I missed it. fixed it. )
Couldn’t sleep and hashed some of my thoughts out on the recent discussion with the absolutists. If you don’t mind, let me know what you think.
On absolutism and propertarianism:
Absolutist: Does the non-declarative (intuitionalistic) actions of the monarch need to be justified?
Answer: Propertarianism as a system is designed for prosecution via. negativa to prevent the CONTINUATION of harmful action. The monarch when using intuitionalistic means of decidability in the moment cannot rely on post-hoc prosecutionary language that categorizes the emergent after the fact.
So no, the non-declarative does not need to be justified in its emergence (I think this is impossible). However I suspect that we can narrow down the mechanisms at play which allow for a person of a certain type to be successfully intuitionalistic. By which the mechanisms are largely unconscious and are carried down intergenerational via. our genetics.
This by admission by no way shape or form dismisses the purpose of propertarianism as a prosecutionary system. This point in no way shape or form gives credit to the critique offered by absolutists that âAnglo Liberal Ontologyâ is invalid, but rather that it is a post-hoc system that is complementary to the intuitionalistic positiva mode of actions taken.
It is by the continuation of this view of science as the categorization of the emergent into tangible concepts that propertarianism attempts to solve the issue of social and political organization.
Propertarian frame thinking:
Phenomena: Absolutists critique Propertarianism as a post-hoc prosecutorial language.
Incentive: It is my opinion that this criticism occurs in the event that propertarianism doesn’t offer a means to overcome nihilism. Only an explanation of the empirical phenomena.
Notes on the conversation:
Absolutists have failed to demonstrate how language is used for anything other than measurement. A shout or call to attention is a measurement of a change in state. A command is a measurement of direction in reaction to a change is state. Both these examples were used during the discussion.
Absolutists have failed to offer a fair argument against propertarianism and instead offer a strawman of Curt’s work while refusing to acknowledge that Curt has set his own limits on the scope of Propertarianism as a system. Criticizing Propertarianism on its self set limits is redundant
Absolutists still engage in categorical shaming. In that their largest critique is that Propertarianism belongs to an ontologically liberal category and that it is somehow lame because of that. It is also then implied that being reactionary as a category is cool or socially better. This is childish.
The strongest point put forth by the Absolutists (to me) is the methods of decidability that are engaged upon by a true sovereign to develop a moral code. As in reciprocity at some level is only valuable to engage in if other subjects have something to offer. This, from what I can tell, does not go against propertarianism; but should be fleshed out a little bit better (to me).
Absolutists appeal to the complexity of the mechanism that take place in the mode of intuitionalistic decidability rather than providing an argument against propertarianism. They also offer little insight into the complex mechanism that are in effect during the process. Perhaps I need to dive deeper than I already have into GA, but I need to be convinced this isn’t going to be a waste of time.
Absolutists and Generative Anthropologists appeal to the fact that language is in fact generative the same way a post modernist would appeal to the fact that categories of arbitrary precision are generative. All things are generative as the process of progressive disambiguation; or the attempts to overcome entropy by creating a more complex model for explaining phenomena. Linguistics have no inherent value besides measurement and those measurements are contextual and depend upon reciprocity of meaning to convey the empirically observable.