I. THE FORMAT OF POSTS – A STYLE GUIDE

1 – A POST

————————–

THIS TITLE IN CAPS MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT

(this cues you to important stuff)

And this is the body text here.

Particularly if I break it into paragraphs.

––“this is quoting someone else”––

—this is quoting myself—

… this

… … is a

… … … series that you might want to learn.

|SERIES|: This > Is > A > Dimensional > Definition

SUBHEADING

And more text goes here. Subheadings cue you to the content.

Signature Line

I use the signature line for myself. So that I can search for the posts I want to publish on my web site later. So they are sort of a ‘stamp of approval’.

2 – A NOTE OR SKETCH

————————–

this doesn’t have header, isn’t broken into paragraphs, and doesn’t even use init-caps, so it’s just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress – rumination.

3 – A PERSONAL OPINION

————————–

(this doesn’t have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means it’s possibly something to ignore … because it’s not an argument. it’s just an opinion or feeling.)

4 – A DIARY ENTRY

————————–

(diary entry)

this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other.

. . .

II. ON STYLE

————————–

Karl Popper created (from aristotle, weber, and pareto) the method of analytic philosophy I make use of, which includes Definitions, Series, Lists, Tables, and parentheticals. He used italics a lot but italics aren’t available in FB or I would us Italics where I use Initial Capitals to denote the name of a definition in a series I have defined elsewhere.

Bold to allow for those of us who read quickly to scan by keywords.

German Capitals: for names of Ideas, like “Rationalism”, “Sovereignty”, “Propertarianism”, or Neologisms, or to alert you to disambiguation (redefinitions).

Parentheticals “(…)”: to bridge operational(technical) and meaningful(familiar) terms, or to limit interpretation.  I try to use parentheticals to create parallel sequences between vernacular terminology and technical terminology, or to insert my ‘voice or opinion’ into the middle of an objective text.

Series and Lists : a sequence of definitions representing a spectrum of terms. The use of series deflates, increases precision, and defeats conflation. First exposure to the methodology’s use and repetition of series tends to both be the most obvious and most helpful of the techniques.

Constructions : tracing the path of the development of ideas from primitive to current constructions.

Algorithms : general processes for the construction of deflations.

(Repetition) : ( … )

(Repetition of series) : ( … )

Wordy Prose.

– Analytic Philosophy is, of necessity, WORDY.

– Operational Language is, of necessity, WORDY.

– Programming Algorithms is, of necessity, WORDY.

– Law, whether Contractual, Legislative, or Constitutional, is WORDY.

– Algorithmic Natural Law is of necessity, WORDY.

Technical Languages evolve to speak precisely. Precise language contains technical terms and is wordy. Why, if all the other sciences require technical language, would we think that speaking technically in the science of cooperation is not going to be wordy?

Well, it’s going to be wordy.

. . .

USE OF PARENTHETICALS (LIKE THIS)

The use of parenthesis (parentheticals) to carry on (communicate) related (parallel) meanings (definitions) so that we both (simultaneously) convey meaning (free association), but at the same time prevent misinterpretation (provide limits).

In other words we can carry on via positiva and via negativa in the same paragraph or sentence. Or that we may use colloquial verse, but include technical terms. It’s profoundly effective.

If you read Popper’s work he uses italics (which was criticized at the time) for similar purposes.

IMHO parentheticals solve the problem of choosing latin prose consisting of long sentences, consisting of many related phrases (which Claire Rae Randall has brought up recently), or separating two sides of an argument into separate paragraphs.

Latin prose tends to be poetic in order to prevent judgment until later phrases emerge (lincoln’s gettysburg address). This becomes increasingly difficult as we speak in increasingly technical terms.

So my opinion is that the parenthetical technique is evolving as our grammatical solution to conceptual density in technical matters, where we can more easily communicate such concepts without burdening and confusing the audience with ‘hanging incomplete ideas’ (separate paragraphs), or too many hanging incomplete ideas (many phrases), by simply limiting each positive concept as its being used (via parentheticals).

But the operational definition would be to provide both meanings in common prose and limits in parentheticals or the reverse: provide precise terms in prose, and common examples in parenthesis, in the same sentence structure.

Now if you read Frank’s comments on other’s posts, at all you’ll see him do both Precise/Example, and Common/Technical at the same time.

This turns out to be what I suggest, is an almost perfect grammar. Or rather, the next evolution of grammar as we increase informational density.

Because like the common law, it ‘corrects’ or ‘informs’ you immediately without requiring that you hold multiple dense contexts in your head until they are later resolved in the text.

My opinion, taken from Greg Bear, is that if we could talk and show flashes of images at the same time – say on our phones, or floating above our heads – then the combination of words (precision) and examples (Images) would create nearly perfect communication.

Writing in Parentheticals, Series, and Axes

(grammar)

I learned the technique of writing with series(sequences) and parenthetic parallels(like this) from Karl Popper (Critical Rationalism). And it was his adoption and use of of series rather than sets that distinguished Popper from the Analytic school. I did not understand originally what was superior about his approach to analytic philosophy, but I understood he had improved upon it. I only understood that he had identified that science was critical not justificationary (like morality and law), and that along with Hayek they were the first to grasp that social science like physical science, must be modeled as a problem of information, not an analogistic model from of prior generations(electricity, steam, water, mechanicals) – just as I understand our problem today is an artifact of industrialization and the attempt to manufacture identical units rather than ‘grow’ a portfolio of the best humans.

Later I came to understand that both parenthetic parallels, series, and relations between axis (think supply demand curves), provided tests of the NECESSITY of meaning, rather than NORMATIVE or COLLOQUIAL meaning. In other words, they limit the reader (and the author) from mal-attribution of properties that occur in normative and colloquial, and particular, and ‘ignorant’ speech.

. . .

USE OF  DISAMBIGUATION, OPERATIONALIZATION, SERIALIZATION,

What the heck does that mean?

1. serialize: to arrange (something) in a series.
2. series: a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another.
3. From “Disambiguation by serialization by constant relation, and operationalization.”
4. The constant relation (falsehood, epistemology, morality)
5. The serialization: ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking…
6. Where operationalization means converting into a series of subjectively testable human actions thereby producing measurements given the marginal indifference in human action.

So where |falsehood| is a monodirectional series, |epistemology| is monodirectional loop, and |MORAL| is bidirectional from the center ‘amoral’.

This process requires we collect all synonyms and antonyms, organize them by some constant relation into a series of less or more of that constant relation.

Why?

All words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs) are constructed of dimensions (scales, series of measurements), open to sense, perception, emotion, or action.

In most cases the human sense perception spectrum appears to produce no more than five degrees of difference for any measurement, such as “distant past, past, recent past, now.” And there are a number of reasons for this – which is why you can only visualize so many of the same things, remember so many numbers or terms, or discern so many directions etc.

In general terms our universe is triangular bias left, forward, bias right, which is our direction of motion. This is also the minimum and maximum necessary decision criteria.

If I go deeper it will get too complicated. So I’ll leave it there.

So, by disambiguation by inventorying, operationalizing, serializing into sequences we create unambiguous measurements for language that prohibit conflation and ambiguity and therefore errors of inference and deduction, effectively turning language – especially language like english with so many terms – into a system of measurement.

By combining this technique of very specific terms (measurements), using operational language that is testable, in promissory form (I Promise that…), absent verb-to-be (meaning “I dunno the condition of existence”) in complete sentences, of complete transactions of changes in state, we convert language to a via-negativa equivalent of a via-positiva programming language with the same test of possibility (compilability) since the ability to compile is a test of disambiguity (yes that’s the secret sauce).

By using supply demand tests of statements rather than ideals we end up with the formal economics of human behavior.

For example, decidability = demand for infallibility in the context in question.

 

. . .

USE OF TESTING RECIPROCITY, PROPERTY IN TOTO, TESTIMONY,

( … )

. . .

USE OF ARROWS? >, <, ->, <-

—“Can you clarify for me your use of the greater than symbol”–

HIERARCHY OF PURPOSE

1. Logical: The Direction of Serialization,

2. Dependency: Hierarchy of Dependency,

3. Evolution: Evolution of Development

4. Physical Causality: Sequence of Operations.

FORMAT

|CONCEPT| neutral > low > medium > high > upper limit

|CONCEPT| upper limit < high <  medium < low <  neutral

|CONCEPT|  worst < much worse  < worse < neutral > better > much better > best

EXAMPLES:

Hierarchy less to more:

|FALSEHOOD|: Ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > obscurantism > fictionalism > deceit > denial.

Direction Less to more in both directions:

|MORAL|: Evil < immoral < unethical < amoral > ethical > moral > Righteous.

Process less to more:

|EPISTEMOLOGY| Observation > Auto-Association > Free Association > hypothesis > (mind-test) > theory > (action-test) > established theory or law (market-test) > limit discovery (falsification) > repeat (revision)

I could write |Falsehood| like this, in code:

Define **Falsehood**( **Criteria**[] ) Returns **Degree** as Scalar {
   Return **FIT**(**Criteria**, (
       Ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > 
       obscurantism > fictionalism > deceit > denial
       ));
}

 

. . .

USE OF GRAPHS

A Triangulation:

......................**COMPETITION**....................*Voluntary Exchange*

................Rule of Law of Reciprocity
..............Christian Rule of Law Monarchy
.............. Anglo Classical Liberalism
...............Continental Social Democracy
                  /                   \
Tolerant Civic Nationalism.........Intolerant Civic Nationalism
Christian Fundamentalism ..........National Socialism
                            \_\_\_
....*Submission-Seduction*...........*Dominance-Warfare*
**.......UNIVERSALISM**..................**PARTICULARISM**

 

Or many other shapes and tables.

A Hierarchy:

Human Logical Facility (constant relations) >
…. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) >
…. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) >
…. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) >
…. …. …. …. Math (positional names) >
…. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) >
…. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) >
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) >
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence

A Comparison:

............Female and Semitic vs Male and European
.....................Dysgenics vs Eugenics
...................Consumption vs Capitalization
...........Private Consumption vs Commons Production
...................Undermining vs Order
..........Approval/Disapproval vs True/False
................Incrementalism vs zero tolerance
.........Plausible Deniability vs Warranty
.........................GSRRM vs Truth Regardless of Cost
......................Critique vs Falsification
........................Pilpul vs Justification
.................False Promise vs Promise
...........Baiting into Hazard vs Offers of Reciprocity
......................One Herd vs Many Packs

 

Multi-Hierarchies

Burial …
Animism ….
… Sun Tzu Realism ( martial realism)
… … Confucianism (harmony)
… … … Daoism (Tolerance)
… Proto IE Religion
… … Proto Vedic
… … … Hinduism
… … … Zoroastrianism
… … European Sky Father (martial realism)
… … … European Common Law (legal realism)
… … … … Platonism (idealism)
… … … … … Aristotelianism (realism naturalism)
… Proto Semitic
… … Proto Judaism
… … … … Abrahamism <- Zoroastrianism (Authoritarianism)
… … … … … Rabbinical Judaism (Justificationism)
… … … … … Christianity (resistance)
… … … … … … The Augustinian Conflation (compromise)
… … … … … … … Orthodoxy – Catholicism, (settlement)
… … … … … … … … Protestantism, (reformation)
… … … … … … … … … Evangelicalism (folk-religion restoration)
… … … … … … Islam (7th c+)
… … … … … … … Fundamentalist Islam (11-12th c+)

 

. . .

USE OF SEQUENTIAL DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS

I don’t frequently use the narrative style. In fact almost everything I write is in programmatic style, where one declarative statement follows another, each incrementally adding to the one before it – brick by brick.

PREMISE OF AN OPTIMUM GOVERNMENT OF MAN

0. A militia consisting of shareholders who reciprocally and unconditionally, insure one another’s property-in-toto from the involuntary imposition of costs by both members and non.

1. A contract (constitution) between those shareholders for that reciprocal insurance, consisting of Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal applicability, absence of discretion through strict construction, with a monarchy as a judge (veto) of last resort. And providing for:

2. A market for polities in which many small polities compete by the production of different commons. (btw: what polities will attract not only the most, but the best women?)

3. A market for the production of commons within any given polity, by exchange between the classes (those with different reproductive strategies, capabilities, and capital interests)

… (more) …

. . .

USE OF PSEUDOCODE

Programming is not just a tool for using computers, but it is a new way of thinking that affected mathematics, logic, cognitive science, and now is altering physics.

P-Logic consists in the convergence of programming, operationalism (which developed from  praxeology), economics (supply and demand).

P-Law consists of the application of P-logic to Reciprocity including that subset of reciprocity we call testimony, or more commonly, truthful speech.

We construct P-Law just like a program:

Given (conditions)
Given (definitions, imported references)
Whereas (we wish to, achieve some end - "original intent")
Therefore (we shall, within these limits)
By this means (processes, procedures, rules, regulations)
That will result in (results)
And that will expire when (conditions)
And we Counsel (advice)
And We Can Do So Under Law (because)
And We Warranty By (list of due diligence)
And We shall be Liable For (liability, signed by)

This law is ‘rigorous’ because of the following reasons:

• We define all properties of man and mankind such that false claims cannot be made.
• We define testimony and reciprocity such that false and irreciprocal claims cannot be made.
• We enumerate all rights and obligations such that they are uninterpretable.
• We require proof by internal construction that the contract or legislation is permissible under the natural law.
• We require strict construction of complete sentences in operational language producing complete transactions of change in state.
• (and more)

===========================

Closing:

I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I don’t have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine