Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Do You Know The Difference? Religion Vs Ideology Vs Philosophy Vs Logic Vs Mathe

    Do You Know The Difference? Religion Vs Ideology Vs Philosophy Vs Logic Vs Mathematics Vs Science

    (repost)

    – A RELIGION consists of any set of ideas of justification which require belief in, testimony to, or action according to, one or more falsehoods as a cost of inclusion and use.

    – AN IDEOLOGY consist of any set of ideas that agitate, motivate, or inspire achievement of political ends under majoritarian (monopoly) democracy. An ideology need not be internally consistent externally correspondent, or existentially possible. It need only motivate individuals to act in furtherance of policy.

    – A PHILOSOPHY consists of any set of internally consistent ideas of decidability which justify pursuit of personal preferences or group goods.

    – A LOGIC consists of any deflationary grammar of decidability that assists in the falsification by competition of one or more constant relations between states. (Note that one proves nothing logically other than internal consistency, because all premises of external correspondence are forever contingent.)

    – MATHEMATICS consists of a deflationary grammar of decidability consisting purely of competition between positional names under the preservation of ratios providing a single axis of decidability: position, but in N dimensions, providing commensurability between any set of positional relations of any number of dimensions.

    – A SCIENCE consists of any set of ideas that provide decidability independent of personal preference or group goods, by the systematic elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, by the use of measurement and record of actions – demonstrations versus words.

    – NATURAL LAW of RECIPROCITY (Tort), was produced scientifically (empirically) by trial and error, through the resolution of disputes across personal preferences, group goods, norms, traditions, and intuitions, cumulating always and everywhere that decidability is provided by property, and property consists in the demonstrated investment of human action or inaction anything whether genetic, material, behavioral, or informational.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-03 13:40:00 UTC

  • “CURT: WHAT DOES YOUR |?????| >>> SYNTAX MEAN?” —“Can you help me understand t

    “CURT: WHAT DOES YOUR |?????| >>> SYNTAX MEAN?”

    —“Can you help me understand the syntax you use? What does the vertical bar ” | ” mean? And this ” > “?”— Eric Grose

    Great Question:

    | DIMENSION | start limit > step > step > step > end limit.

    Where >, <, <-, and ->, state the direction. So you will see me use < < <, or > > >, or < < <- center -> > > depending upon the direction.

    It’s a “Dimension” definition, meaning an ordered range of values that are permissible for use in a property of a Class (definition).

    It defines the LIMITS (start and end) and COMPLETENESS (range of values), in PARSIMONIOUS FORM, thereby satisfying Testimonialism’s demand for both LIMITS and FULL ACCOUNTING for any warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

    Given a Class (Table), consisting of (a) Properties(Attributes) and their Values (data), (b) Relations (references), and (c) Methods (internal operations), and (d) functions (external operations), a Dimension provides the range of values permissible for a property.

    It’ is a geometric (linear, serialize) method of defining a dimension (table of values).

    So we convert:

    |TEACHING| Reading to > Lecturing > Socratic Teaching > Running a grad seminar > Running an MBA/Law course (case studies) > Running a Competitive Game > Military Training.

    Into:

    Define TEACHING: id: int, str: category.

    Insert TEACHING:

    | TEACHING |

    1, Reading to

    2, Lecturing

    3, Socratic Teaching

    4, Running a grad seminar

    5, Running an MBA/Law course (case studies)

    6, Running a Competitive Game

    7, Military Training

    (a tiny bit of the relational calculus)

    WHY?

    Because the grammars allow us to produce an N-Dimensional geometry of ‘meaning’. But that is not something I am going to put into this series of the work. It’s like putting equations in to it. So I’m using the Series instead.

    OK?

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-03 09:56:00 UTC

  • Yes, via Negativa Reasoning Is the Hardest Habit to Learn

    —“I would say via negative appears counter-intuitive to most. And that’s part of the problem: reliance on intuition (or counter intuition) for navigation and problem solving”— Micah Pezdirtz

    [Y]es, the via-negativa is the hardest habit to develop. In economic terms, via-negativa consists of just looking for the equilibrating force, and so it’s all just the application of economic (equilibration) and science (falsification) to what we traditionally treat as moral questions (justification). It’s so much part of our language, and culture, and literature… and history. It’s just like learning the earth isn’t the center but an irrelevant little bit of dust in the galactic suburbs – and that man isn’t designed just an accident of evolutionary experimentation.

  • Yes, via Negativa Reasoning Is the Hardest Habit to Learn

    —“I would say via negative appears counter-intuitive to most. And that’s part of the problem: reliance on intuition (or counter intuition) for navigation and problem solving”— Micah Pezdirtz

    [Y]es, the via-negativa is the hardest habit to develop. In economic terms, via-negativa consists of just looking for the equilibrating force, and so it’s all just the application of economic (equilibration) and science (falsification) to what we traditionally treat as moral questions (justification). It’s so much part of our language, and culture, and literature… and history. It’s just like learning the earth isn’t the center but an irrelevant little bit of dust in the galactic suburbs – and that man isn’t designed just an accident of evolutionary experimentation.

  • “How Can I Learn to Communicate Like You Do?”

    There was a time, not so long ago, that this question would have been met with “Why?” lol

    —“How can I learn to communicate like you do? One cannot effectively communicate what is inside without the proper language or outlet to express those things.”— A Friend

    [I] would have to understand you a bit better to know how to answer that. But yes, Propertarianism makes it possible to speak what is in your mind in scientific terms. I think understanding what I teach requires a great deal of knowledge that unfortunately, we are INTENTIONALLY not taught. I suppose that when I offer my class this january, that you can join that and I can help teach it to you. There are a couple of problems learning. 1) learning to think ‘via-negativa’ (in what will make this false) is much harder than how we think today in the ‘via positiva’. 2) learning to describe everything in economic and commercial terms is also somewhat difficult Because doing both of those requires re-training our ‘intuition’ so that you leave behind the supernatural, and moral ages, and speak in scientific terms of the scientific age. Then learning WHY that is true, requires learning ‘the grammars of speech’ which i don’t think is TOO hard, and then learning testimonialism (the grammar of falsification). It’s basically like learning a law degree. But the difference is, that ‘once you see the world this way’ it will all fit together and much more of it will be clear to you. At that point you will be able to ‘speak what is in your mind’ because you will have the vocabulary for it.

  • “How Can I Learn to Communicate Like You Do?”

    There was a time, not so long ago, that this question would have been met with “Why?” lol

    —“How can I learn to communicate like you do? One cannot effectively communicate what is inside without the proper language or outlet to express those things.”— A Friend

    [I] would have to understand you a bit better to know how to answer that. But yes, Propertarianism makes it possible to speak what is in your mind in scientific terms. I think understanding what I teach requires a great deal of knowledge that unfortunately, we are INTENTIONALLY not taught. I suppose that when I offer my class this january, that you can join that and I can help teach it to you. There are a couple of problems learning. 1) learning to think ‘via-negativa’ (in what will make this false) is much harder than how we think today in the ‘via positiva’. 2) learning to describe everything in economic and commercial terms is also somewhat difficult Because doing both of those requires re-training our ‘intuition’ so that you leave behind the supernatural, and moral ages, and speak in scientific terms of the scientific age. Then learning WHY that is true, requires learning ‘the grammars of speech’ which i don’t think is TOO hard, and then learning testimonialism (the grammar of falsification). It’s basically like learning a law degree. But the difference is, that ‘once you see the world this way’ it will all fit together and much more of it will be clear to you. At that point you will be able to ‘speak what is in your mind’ because you will have the vocabulary for it.

  • The Lesson of “The Art of War”

    [I]t is an essay in the amoral (not immoral). We spend so much time in moral mind, we leave ourselves open to defeat. So, he retrains us to think objectively rather than morally. It is not a book about war. It is a book by which we restore agency, lost in the training of our norms.

  • The Lesson of “The Art of War”

    [I]t is an essay in the amoral (not immoral). We spend so much time in moral mind, we leave ourselves open to defeat. So, he retrains us to think objectively rather than morally. It is not a book about war. It is a book by which we restore agency, lost in the training of our norms.

  • “How can I learn to communicate like you do? One cannot effectively communicate

    —“How can I learn to communicate like you do? One cannot effectively communicate what is inside without the proper language or outlet to express those things.”— A Friend

    I would have to understand you a bit better to know how to answer that. But yes, Propertarianism makes it possible to speak what is in your mind in scientific terms.

    I think understanding what I teach requires a great deal of knowledge that unfortunately, we are INTENTIONALLY not taught.

    I suppose that when I offer my class this january, that you can join that and I can help teach it to you.

    There are a couple of problems learning.

    1) learning to think ‘via-negativa’ (in what will make this false) is much harder than how we think today in the ‘via positiva’.

    2) learning to describe everything in economic and commercial terms is also somewhat difficult

    Because doing both of those requires re-training our ‘intuition’ so that you leave behind the supernatural, and moral ages, and speak in scientific terms of the scientific age.

    Then learning WHY that is true, requires learning ‘the grammars of speech’ which i don’t think is TOO hard, and then learning testimonialism (the grammar of falsification).

    It’s basically like learning a law degree. But the difference is, that ‘once you see the world this way’ it will all fit together and much more of it will be clear to you.

    At that point you will be able to ‘speak what is in your mind’ because you will have the vocabulary for it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-02 16:47:00 UTC

  • YES, VIA NEGATIVA REASONING IS THE HARDEST HABIT TO LEARN —“I would say via ne

    YES, VIA NEGATIVA REASONING IS THE HARDEST HABIT TO LEARN

    —“I would say via negative appears counter-intuitive to most. And that’s part of the problem: reliance on intuition (or counter intuition) for navigation and problem solving”— Micah Pezdirtz

    Yes, the via-negativa is the hardest habit to develop.

    In economic terms, via-negativa consists of just looking for the equilibrating force, and so it’s all just the application of economic (equilibration) and science (falsification) to what we traditionally treat as moral questions (justification).

    It’s so much part of our language, and culture, and literature… and history. It’s just like learning the earth isn’t the center but an irrelevant little bit of dust in the galactic suburbs – and that man isn’t designed just an accident of evolutionary experimentation.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-02 08:08:00 UTC