photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/23270166_10155863047107264_34948911

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/23270166_10155863047107264_3494891149688064566_o_10155863047107264.jpg Dimensions of reality on Y axis from upper right to bottom. Minimum to Ordinary Language grammars on X upper right to left. Truth criteria along the bottom. Right most column ordinary language.

So I have a lot of revision to do with this but in general, the idea is that in every deflationary ‘grammar’ we find the same sequence of constructs, and those constructs correspond to dimensions of reality.James BrittinghamKnow you’re busy, but if you could post link to pdf or other downloadable version, would be great. Can’t read this.Nov 07, 2017 11:35amCurt DoolittleIt’s plenty large enough on desktop (it’s hi rez) but if you look at it on a mobile it will be cut down.Nov 07, 2017 11:37amBill JoslinThe thought I had when looking at this earlier was breakthroughs in human cognition followed a pattern.

Persception -> deconflation -> finding a unit of measure -> finding commensurability. Breakthroughs occur when commensurability between disperate domains are discovered, which then gives rise to better measures. Discovering the common relation reveals commensurable measure. Operational epistemology focusses on relations as primary and identity/domains as secondary (or contingent).Nov 07, 2017 11:43amCurt DoolittleExactly. although I think we find commensurability and then measure but it could be two sides of the same coin.Nov 07, 2017 11:45amJames BrittinghamOkay thanks.Nov 07, 2017 11:45amBill JoslinInhibitions to human cognition follow the inverse pattern.

Persception -> conflation -> generalization-> faked commensurabilityNov 07, 2017 11:46amBill JoslinI agree. Particular measures with in a domain which afford recognition of the common relation which reveals commensurability, which is a new or refined measure.Nov 07, 2017 11:48amBill JoslinBridgman was right – defining concepts by operations aligns better with reality, but I would take this further and say that identity names or labels a set of constant relations with in boundaries. Substantive or object based identity names by boundary and misses the constant relations. By missing the constant relations the interaction of identities becomes obscured (operations at higher orders is obscured)Nov 07, 2017 11:52amBill JoslinThis is huge and very importantNov 07, 2017 11:52amBill JoslinIdentity = bound constant relationsNov 07, 2017 11:54amCurt Doolittleoooohhh,… nice.Nov 07, 2017 12:48pmWilliam L. BengeThus allowing all items on one’s horizon to be authentically identified and identifiable, from which the actor is enabled to decipher the real relationships between each; understanding. And, from that newly obtained vantage, proceed to decipher one’s best preferred volitional action, or really interaction. A methodology or science for development of efficacy; personal or group wisdom? I do think so.Nov 07, 2017 12:49pmBryan Nova BreyOver here too @[1255416290:2048:Blake Southwood]. I think you should friend request Curt.Nov 08, 2017 2:05amDimensions of reality on Y axis from upper right to bottom. Minimum to Ordinary Language grammars on X upper right to left. Truth criteria along the bottom. Right most column ordinary language.

So I have a lot of revision to do with this but in general, the idea is that in every deflationary ‘grammar’ we find the same sequence of constructs, and those constructs correspond to dimensions of reality.