Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Reciprocity, Testimony, Dimensions

    Again. Dimensions.

    1. Logic = Constant relations of sense perceptions.

    2. Identity =(NAMES)

    – Internally consistent, not inconsistent, sets of properties – Constant Relations between collections of properties.

    1. Sets = (LANGUAGE)
    2. Science = (OBSERVATIONS)
    3. Operational = (ACTIONS)

    – Internally consistent (constant, consistent relations), Relations, , .) – Constant relations between collections of references – Empirical, externally correspondent, correlative – Constant Relations between collections of references and reality – Operationally consistent or operationally possible Causation – Constant Relations between collections of references, actions, and reality in time.

    1. Rational (reasonable) = (RATIONAL INCENTIVE)
      (choice)

    2. Reciprocity = (RECIPROCAL INCENTIVES)
      (cooperation)

    This is the full set of dimensions of causality that humans can perceive and compare in order to decide. Each depends upon the one before it.

  • P: We Operationalize the Series (statement) Not the Elements (evidence)

    P: We Operationalize the Series (statement) Not the Elements (evidence) https://t.co/jSEyrdBsRv

  • P: We Operationalize the Series (statement) Not the Elements (evidence)

    P: We Operationalize the Series (statement) Not the Elements (evidence) https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/02/p-we-operationalize-the-series-statement-not-the-elements-evidence/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-02 00:46:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267618570156027909

  • P: We Operationalize the Series (statement) Not the Elements (evidence)

    Sep 28, 2019, 8:31 AM P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence)

    —-“Your proclamation as being scientific is also interesting considering the most interesting of your formulations are extrapolations (grammar “word->word”, non-operational, but well condensed.”— Twitter

    (That’s a great question. Very few people have the insight to ask it.) The Methodology: Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization. Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements. So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous). Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement. The question is only the precision of the measures. P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.

  • P: We Operationalize the Series (statement) Not the Elements (evidence)

    Sep 28, 2019, 8:31 AM P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence)

    —-“Your proclamation as being scientific is also interesting considering the most interesting of your formulations are extrapolations (grammar “word->word”, non-operational, but well condensed.”— Twitter

    (That’s a great question. Very few people have the insight to ask it.) The Methodology: Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization. Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements. So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous). Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement. The question is only the precision of the measures. P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.

  • Pilpul and Derivatives Are Framed As, but Not Contingent or Causal

    Pilpul and Derivatives Are Framed As, but Not Contingent or Causal. https://t.co/2bi6LWqwt6

  • Pilpul and Derivatives Are Framed As, but Not Contingent or Causal

    Pilpul and Derivatives Are Framed As, but Not Contingent or Causal. https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/pilpul-and-derivatives-are-framed-as-but-not-contingent-or-causal/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 23:32:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267599818894999554

  • Pilpul and Derivatives Are Framed As, but Not Contingent or Causal.

    PILPUL AND DERIVATIVES ARE FRAMED AS, BUT NOT CONTINGENT OR CAUSAL.

    —“A thought on grammars of ambiguation – pilpul and derivative ideologies base on primacy of linguistics would be grammars that are neither contingent nor causal, but are framed to be so?”—Bill Joslin

    Smart. Correct. — REGARDING —

    —“So it’s correct to call apriorism an ideal grammar, but not a formal grammar. Thankfully I finally know how to talk about the grammars of each incremental dimension… sigh. Mathematical grammars are not contingent because of constant relations. That’s their beauty. The problem is they’re non causal.Linguistic (Philosophical) grammars are contingent. That’s their weakness.Operational grammars are not contingent. And they’re causal. That’s their beauty.”—Curt Doolittle

  • Pilpul and Derivatives Are Framed As, but Not Contingent or Causal.

    PILPUL AND DERIVATIVES ARE FRAMED AS, BUT NOT CONTINGENT OR CAUSAL.

    —“A thought on grammars of ambiguation – pilpul and derivative ideologies base on primacy of linguistics would be grammars that are neither contingent nor causal, but are framed to be so?”—Bill Joslin

    Smart. Correct. — REGARDING —

    —“So it’s correct to call apriorism an ideal grammar, but not a formal grammar. Thankfully I finally know how to talk about the grammars of each incremental dimension… sigh. Mathematical grammars are not contingent because of constant relations. That’s their beauty. The problem is they’re non causal.Linguistic (Philosophical) grammars are contingent. That’s their weakness.Operational grammars are not contingent. And they’re causal. That’s their beauty.”—Curt Doolittle

  • Propertarianism Is a System of Thought Just Like Aristotelianism

    PROPERTARIANISM IS A SYSTEM OF THOUGHT JUST LIKE ARISTOTELIANISM WHICH IT SEEKS TO COMPLETE Let’s disambiguate Propertarianism a bit. We use the term “Propertarianism” as a brand name. But, Propertarianism as constructed is just a methodology: an Operational Logic of the human sciences. Technically speaking propertarianism refers to the unit of measurement for demonstrated interests (expenditures) in individual action and interpersonal and group cooperation. This methodology makes use of not less than the following reformation of the aristotelian categories and their merger with the sciences: (a) physics – (realism, naturalism, entropy, operationalism) (b) vitruvianism (the grammars) – metaphysics, (c) acquisitionism – psychology, (d) compatibilism – sociology, (e) propertarianism (reciprocity) – ethics (f) testimonialism – epistemology (logic, emp, oprer.) (g) Sovereigntarianism (rule of law) – politics (h) Adaptive Velocity – group strategy (i) Transcendence (eugenics, heroism, excellence, beauty) – Aesthetics As far as I now there is no other system of thought anywhere ear complete, nor one that is value neutral, other than aristotle’s attempt. SOVEREIGNTARIANISM Sovereigntarianism is a political methodology, or what we used to call philosophy, that uses the aristotelian-propertarian paradigm and methodology. PERFECT GOVERNMENT Perfect Government is a recommended organization of governments that can – like the roman- react to stress and war, operating as a growing concern – and distributing windfalls. This government differs from the modern in that it is less optimistic of human character, and suppresses falsehood and rent seeking of all kinds, and definnacializes the polity, and depoliticizes the polity, so that people are limited to the market of voluntary cooperation to improve their lives. This government is described using a set of levers so to speak (set of choices) that vary according to market demand for government, from the most authoritarian in war, to the most redistributive under windfalls, while at the same time eliminating the ability of individuals and groups to accumulate rents and corruption (calcification) that always and everywhere brings down a polities from the village to the empire.

    1. Propertarianism > Methodology
    2. Sovereigntarianism > Socio-legal methodology
    3. Perfect Government > Economic-political-military methodology.

    As far as I know there is no program as large, or as complete, or as scientific as Propertarianism in human history and the best we have so far is the set of empirical disciplines that have been as much a tragedy as a benefit to us. Because empiricism = correspondence it does not equal causality. Operationalism equals causality. Thanks. I hope this helps newbs.