Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • THE FIRST COWARDICE The first cowardice of any people is their fear of truthful

    THE FIRST COWARDICE

    The first cowardice of any people is their fear of truthful speech, followed by their inability to trust one another, their paranoia because of it, their inability to build a commercial civilization because of it, and their serfdom to superstition, convention, propaganda, or falsehood because of all four. 😉

    The cause of the first cowardice of any people is the fear of admission of one’s sexual, social, economic, intellectual, artistic, political, and military value. The fear of admitting one’s value, causes fear of speaking truth regardless of the consequences.

    This is what separates western man from the west. To one another, we speak the truth no matter the consequences. We no voice, respect or honor not earned. We need no lies to believe to provide us comfort. No gods to worship but our ancestors. No book to memorize other than the book of nature we write anew with each generation. No universe to fear but the labor of its conquest and seed.

    We do not fear the truth. We do not fear domesticating the animal in ourselves – or in others. We profit from it. And we do not rattle sabers without the certainty of the will to draw them.

    So, do not throw stones of cowardice when you live in glass houses. Your words are empty. If you cannot speak truth, then you are but a coward from the moment you open your mouth.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-09 19:26:00 UTC

  • (I just work harder at not being wrong )

    October 9th, 2018 2:14 PM SERIOUSLY. [I] don’t make mistakes (very many anyway). It’s my job to limit myself to those things in which I can’t be mistaken, or which being mistaken is extremely difficult. Which is the entire point of my work. 😉 Limit yourself to that which you can operationally testify to. it’s not that I’m always right. It’s that I just work at not being wrong harder than most people you know, because I understood how to complete the scientific method such that if I can explain something, it’s very hard to be wrong by the method of explanation that I use. not complicated. sorta like math and legos. if yo can build it it’s got truth candidacy. If not it doesn’t. if you can’t buildit with operations then don’t have an opinion.

  • (I just work harder at not being wrong )

    October 9th, 2018 2:14 PM SERIOUSLY. [I] don’t make mistakes (very many anyway). It’s my job to limit myself to those things in which I can’t be mistaken, or which being mistaken is extremely difficult. Which is the entire point of my work. 😉 Limit yourself to that which you can operationally testify to. it’s not that I’m always right. It’s that I just work at not being wrong harder than most people you know, because I understood how to complete the scientific method such that if I can explain something, it’s very hard to be wrong by the method of explanation that I use. not complicated. sorta like math and legos. if yo can build it it’s got truth candidacy. If not it doesn’t. if you can’t buildit with operations then don’t have an opinion.

  • SERIOUSLY. I don’t make mistakes (very many anyway). It’s my job to limit myself

    SERIOUSLY.

    I don’t make mistakes (very many anyway). It’s my job to limit myself to those things in which I can’t be mistaken, or which being mistaken is extremely difficult. Which is the entire point of my work. 😉 Limit yourself to that which you can operationally testify to.

    it’s not that I’m always right. It’s that I just work at not being wrong harder than most people you know, because I understood how to complete the scientific method such that if I can explain something, it’s very hard to be wrong by the method of explanation that I use.

    not complicated. sorta like math and legos. if yo can build it it’s got truth candidacy. If not it doesn’t. if you can’t buildit with operations then don’t have an opinion.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-09 14:14:00 UTC

  • THE FINAL WORD ON ONTOLOGY vs PARADIGM AND FRAME. Ontology is used in subjective

    THE FINAL WORD ON ONTOLOGY vs PARADIGM AND FRAME.

    Ontology is used in subjective (experiential) and objective (testimonial) contexts to refer to a hierarchy of categories in a paradigm (network) of constant relations between existence perception cognition speech, and the service of speech in recreating the experience (loaded and inflated) or testimony (unloaded and deflated).

    .

    In the Continental Tradition (Literary, Platonic) sense it can include Experiential Categories (Phenomenalism for example), and in the Anglo Tradition (Science, Accounting, and Law), it cannot include experiential categories (imaginary, ideal, cognitive, emotive, pseudo-physical biases) as a defense against biases and their arbitrariness: inconstant, loaded, framed, fictionalized, idealized, relations between the universe and our descriptions of it.

    Being, and Ontology are currently “archaic”, and we use scientific categories instead: Paradigm. Paradigms are constructed of a network of theories, from terms to narratives; and we acknowledge that Paradigms (search for consistency correspondence possibility and parsimony) and Frames (loading, framing, suggesting, overloading) are both used by us in our speech.

    So we end up with (Ontology(conflationary)) vs ((Paradigm(measurement) and Frame(experience)) (deflationary))

    Note below that “Being” and “Ontology” both describe this spectrum of subjective to objective. So when one uses the term Ontology, one can refer to literary-subjective-loaded-framed-arbitrary, or scientific-objective-deflated-correspondent.

    GRAMMATICAL DEFLATION (ontology of speech)

    SUPERNATURAL: Occult (religion, emotion) > IDEAL: Verbalism (Philosophical Rationalism, imagination) > REAL: Scientific (Testimonial, measurement).

    be·ing [ˈbēiNG] NOUN

    1. existence.

    “the railroad brought many towns into being” · [more]

    synonyms:

    existence · living · life · animation · animateness · aliveness · reality · actuality · essential nature · lifeblood · vital force · entity · esse

    2. the nature or essence of a person.

    “sometimes one aspect of our being has been developed at the expense of the others”

    synonyms:

    soul · spirit · nature · essence · substance · entity · inner being · inner self · psyche · heart · bosom · breast · core · kernel · marrow · quiddity · pneuma

    3. a real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.

    “alien beings” ·

    synonyms:

    creature · life form · living entity · living thing · living soul · soul · individual · person · personage · human being · human · man · woman · life · existence · earthling

    on·tol·o·gy [änˈtäləjē] NOUN

    1. the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

    2. a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them.

    “what’s new about our ontology is that it is created automatically from large datasets” · “we’re using ontologies to capture and analyze some of the knowledge in our department”

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-09 08:11:00 UTC

  • The Final Word on Ontology vs Paradigm and Frame

    October 9th, 2018 8:11 AM THE FINAL WORD ON ONTOLOGY vs PARADIGM AND FRAME. Ontology is used in subjective (experiential) and objective (testimonial) contexts to refer to a hierarchy of categories in a paradigm (network) of constant relations between existence perception cognition speech, and the service of speech in recreating the experience (loaded and inflated) or testimony (unloaded and deflated). . In the Continental Tradition (Literary, Platonic) sense it can include Experiential Categories (Phenomenalism for example), and in the Anglo Tradition (Science, Accounting, and Law), it cannot include experiential categories (imaginary, ideal, cognitive, emotive, pseudo-physical biases) as a defense against biases and their arbitrariness: inconstant, loaded, framed, fictionalized, idealized, relations between the universe and our descriptions of it. Being, and Ontology are currently “archaic”, and we use scientific categories instead: Paradigm. Paradigms are constructed of a network of theories, from terms to narratives; and we acknowledge that Paradigms (search for consistency correspondence possibility and parsimony) and Frames (loading, framing, suggesting, overloading) are both used by us in our speech. So we end up with (Ontology(conflationary)) vs ((Paradigm(measurement) and Frame(experience)) (deflationary)) Note below that “Being” and “Ontology” both describe this spectrum of subjective to objective. So when one uses the term Ontology, one can refer to literary-subjective-loaded-framed-arbitrary, or scientific-objective-deflated-correspondent. GRAMMATICAL DEFLATION (ontology of speech)SUPERNATURAL: Occult (religion, emotion) > IDEAL: Verbalism (Philosophical Rationalism, imagination) > REAL: Scientific (Testimonial, measurement). be·ing [ˈbēiNG] NOUN

    1. existence.

      “the railroad brought many towns into being” · [more]

      synonyms:

      existence · living · life · animation · animateness · aliveness · reality · actuality · essential nature · lifeblood · vital force · entity · esse
    2. the nature or essence of a person.

      “sometimes one aspect of our being has been developed at the expense of the others”

      synonyms:

      soul · spirit · nature · essence · substance · entity · inner being · inner self · psyche · heart · bosom · breast · core · kernel · marrow · quiddity · pneuma
    3. a real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.

      “alien beings” ·

      synonyms:

      creature · life form · living entity · living thing · living soul · soul · individual · person · personage · human being · human · man · woman · life · existence · earthling

    on·tol·o·gy [änˈtäləjē] NOUN

    1. the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
    2. a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them.

      “what’s new about our ontology is that it is created automatically from large datasets” · “we’re using ontologies to capture and analyze some of the knowledge in our department”

  • The Final Word on Ontology vs Paradigm and Frame

    October 9th, 2018 8:11 AM THE FINAL WORD ON ONTOLOGY vs PARADIGM AND FRAME. Ontology is used in subjective (experiential) and objective (testimonial) contexts to refer to a hierarchy of categories in a paradigm (network) of constant relations between existence perception cognition speech, and the service of speech in recreating the experience (loaded and inflated) or testimony (unloaded and deflated). . In the Continental Tradition (Literary, Platonic) sense it can include Experiential Categories (Phenomenalism for example), and in the Anglo Tradition (Science, Accounting, and Law), it cannot include experiential categories (imaginary, ideal, cognitive, emotive, pseudo-physical biases) as a defense against biases and their arbitrariness: inconstant, loaded, framed, fictionalized, idealized, relations between the universe and our descriptions of it. Being, and Ontology are currently “archaic”, and we use scientific categories instead: Paradigm. Paradigms are constructed of a network of theories, from terms to narratives; and we acknowledge that Paradigms (search for consistency correspondence possibility and parsimony) and Frames (loading, framing, suggesting, overloading) are both used by us in our speech. So we end up with (Ontology(conflationary)) vs ((Paradigm(measurement) and Frame(experience)) (deflationary)) Note below that “Being” and “Ontology” both describe this spectrum of subjective to objective. So when one uses the term Ontology, one can refer to literary-subjective-loaded-framed-arbitrary, or scientific-objective-deflated-correspondent. GRAMMATICAL DEFLATION (ontology of speech)SUPERNATURAL: Occult (religion, emotion) > IDEAL: Verbalism (Philosophical Rationalism, imagination) > REAL: Scientific (Testimonial, measurement). be·ing [ˈbēiNG] NOUN

    1. existence.

      “the railroad brought many towns into being” · [more]

      synonyms:

      existence · living · life · animation · animateness · aliveness · reality · actuality · essential nature · lifeblood · vital force · entity · esse
    2. the nature or essence of a person.

      “sometimes one aspect of our being has been developed at the expense of the others”

      synonyms:

      soul · spirit · nature · essence · substance · entity · inner being · inner self · psyche · heart · bosom · breast · core · kernel · marrow · quiddity · pneuma
    3. a real or imaginary living creature or entity, especially an intelligent one.

      “alien beings” ·

      synonyms:

      creature · life form · living entity · living thing · living soul · soul · individual · person · personage · human being · human · man · woman · life · existence · earthling

    on·tol·o·gy [änˈtäləjē] NOUN

    1. the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
    2. a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them.

      “what’s new about our ontology is that it is created automatically from large datasets” · “we’re using ontologies to capture and analyze some of the knowledge in our department”

  • The Difference Between Understanding(knowledge) and Use (craft)

    October 8th, 2018 2:28 PM THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UNDERSTANDING(KNOWLEDGE) AND USE (CRAFT) I just thought of a good analogy. Mathematicians do amazing things without having any idea why their craft performs as it does. Then we have this nonsense of the contortions of the logical foundations of mathematics, that once you understand them, are ridiculous. Not false, just ridiculous – because the foundations of mathematics are TRIVIAL. But the whole host of nonsense we call mathematics doesn’t stop us from using the CRAFT of mathematics, any more than adding ancestor’s bones to a crucible of iron doesn’t explain why the extra carbon can produce low grade steel. It didn’t stop people from making steel. The same is true of the LAW. People conflate the ethical, moral, legal, and necessary law (natural law) all the time as what they intuit as ‘wrong’. Yet a minority of laws, moral norms, social norms, customs, traditions are in fact ethical, and moral under natural law because our various polities, groups, cultures, and civilizations used different portfolios of rights and obligations to preserve the social order regardless of its morality – survival is not a moral question. So we just habituate all sorts of means of calculating, from math and logic to laws, and norms, we produce vocabularies that help us do what we do in the context that we do it in, and we lose, if we ever new, which mostly we don’t, the ‘science’ and ‘logic’ in the rich weave of normative rules that we use on a day to day basis. It’s a small minority of us that must learn, recall, use, persist, and evolve those fundamental ideas that allow us to manufacture those normative ideas in useful form. Goods, Services, and Information are all products. The thing is, that goods are easy to charge for, services less so, and information hardly useful at all except in dispute resolution.

  • The Difference Between Understanding(knowledge) and Use (craft)

    October 8th, 2018 2:28 PM THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UNDERSTANDING(KNOWLEDGE) AND USE (CRAFT) I just thought of a good analogy. Mathematicians do amazing things without having any idea why their craft performs as it does. Then we have this nonsense of the contortions of the logical foundations of mathematics, that once you understand them, are ridiculous. Not false, just ridiculous – because the foundations of mathematics are TRIVIAL. But the whole host of nonsense we call mathematics doesn’t stop us from using the CRAFT of mathematics, any more than adding ancestor’s bones to a crucible of iron doesn’t explain why the extra carbon can produce low grade steel. It didn’t stop people from making steel. The same is true of the LAW. People conflate the ethical, moral, legal, and necessary law (natural law) all the time as what they intuit as ‘wrong’. Yet a minority of laws, moral norms, social norms, customs, traditions are in fact ethical, and moral under natural law because our various polities, groups, cultures, and civilizations used different portfolios of rights and obligations to preserve the social order regardless of its morality – survival is not a moral question. So we just habituate all sorts of means of calculating, from math and logic to laws, and norms, we produce vocabularies that help us do what we do in the context that we do it in, and we lose, if we ever new, which mostly we don’t, the ‘science’ and ‘logic’ in the rich weave of normative rules that we use on a day to day basis. It’s a small minority of us that must learn, recall, use, persist, and evolve those fundamental ideas that allow us to manufacture those normative ideas in useful form. Goods, Services, and Information are all products. The thing is, that goods are easy to charge for, services less so, and information hardly useful at all except in dispute resolution.

  • THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UNDERSTANDING(KNOWLEDGE) AND USE (CRAFT) I just thought o

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UNDERSTANDING(KNOWLEDGE) AND USE (CRAFT)

    I just thought of a good analogy.

    Mathematicians do amazing things without having any idea why their craft performs as it does. Then we have this nonsense of the contortions of the logical foundations of mathematics, that once you understand them, are ridiculous. Not false, just ridiculous – because the foundations of mathematics are TRIVIAL.

    But the whole host of nonsense we call mathematics doesn’t stop us from using the CRAFT of mathematics, any more than adding ancestor’s bones to a crucible of iron doesn’t explain why the extra carbon can produce low grade steel. It didn’t stop people from making steel.

    The same is true of the LAW. People conflate the ethical, moral, legal, and necessary law (natural law) all the time as what they intuit as ‘wrong’. Yet a minority of laws, moral norms, social norms, customs, traditions are in fact ethical, and moral under natural law because our various polities, groups, cultures, and civilizations used different portfolios of rights and obligations to preserve the social order regardless of its morality – survival is not a moral question.

    So we just habituate all sorts of means of calculating, from math and logic to laws, and norms, we produce vocabularies that help us do what we do in the context that we do it in, and we lose, if we ever new, which mostly we don’t, the ‘science’ and ‘logic’ in the rich weave of normative rules that we use on a day to day basis.

    It’s a small minority of us that must learn, recall, use, persist, and evolve those fundamental ideas that allow us to manufacture those normative ideas in useful form.

    Goods, Services, and Information are all products. The thing is, that goods are easy to charge for, services less so, and information hardly useful at all except in dispute resolution.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-08 14:28:00 UTC