THE COMPETITION BETWEEN POSITIVA AND NEGATIVA
Logics are deflationary grammars so that we can test ourselves. They are very limited languages with very strict grammars and semantics. They serve as means of falsification.
Stories allow us to search for opportunities.
Via-positiva stories (meaning) vs via-negativa logics (falsification) and the truth is what survives the competition.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-17 08:00:00 UTC
OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE EXPRESSING SCIENCE: THE LEAST FALSE METHOD OF REACHING ROME —“Science is both the method of inquiry and the body of knowledge gained by that method’s application. A priori knowledge applies only to the abstract, once it interacts with the real world the test of any tool or paradigm is how effective it is in predicting and changing it. As there’s only one real world, any framework or method of inquiry that is effective in interfacing with it will approach the same results. All roads lead to Rome, as it were.”—Jason Johnson >Curt Doolittle ^ This is the most important argument really. Although I would refine it to say ‘there is only one most parsimonious (shortest) road to Rome.’
OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE EXPRESSING SCIENCE: THE LEAST FALSE METHOD OF REACHING ROME —“Science is both the method of inquiry and the body of knowledge gained by that method’s application. A priori knowledge applies only to the abstract, once it interacts with the real world the test of any tool or paradigm is how effective it is in predicting and changing it. As there’s only one real world, any framework or method of inquiry that is effective in interfacing with it will approach the same results. All roads lead to Rome, as it were.”—Jason Johnson >Curt Doolittle ^ This is the most important argument really. Although I would refine it to say ‘there is only one most parsimonious (shortest) road to Rome.’
There is a reason the world is continuously coalescing to the vocabulary and grammars of science: and that is because of the commensurability and therefore falsificationary value of the single most parsimonious vocabulary and grammar consisting entirely of continuous relations from the very small below human scale, through to human scale, to the very large beyond human scale – the semantics of which consist of analogies to observable experience: human scale. Any idiot can come up with a paradigm that provides some sort of explanatory power, in the same way that a fairy tale, legend, or mythos provides explanatory power: by analogy. And idiots come up with new paradigms all the time, in an effort to elucidate some set of relations or other. And the they congratulate themselves on their insight and next seek to preserve that insight by justification: a forever-failing attempt to find a way for the rest of human knowledge to fit that paradigm. They over-invest. They fail. It is quite different to start with an attempt to discover the grammar and semantics of science itself, and with that ambition to correct the minor incompatibilities between the arts and sciences, thereby increasing commensurability and falsifiability across all arts and sciences – producing a universal grammar and semantics and as such rendering all human knowledge more parsimonious and synthetic.
There is a reason the world is continuously coalescing to the vocabulary and grammars of science: and that is because of the commensurability and therefore falsificationary value of the single most parsimonious vocabulary and grammar consisting entirely of continuous relations from the very small below human scale, through to human scale, to the very large beyond human scale – the semantics of which consist of analogies to observable experience: human scale. Any idiot can come up with a paradigm that provides some sort of explanatory power, in the same way that a fairy tale, legend, or mythos provides explanatory power: by analogy. And idiots come up with new paradigms all the time, in an effort to elucidate some set of relations or other. And the they congratulate themselves on their insight and next seek to preserve that insight by justification: a forever-failing attempt to find a way for the rest of human knowledge to fit that paradigm. They over-invest. They fail. It is quite different to start with an attempt to discover the grammar and semantics of science itself, and with that ambition to correct the minor incompatibilities between the arts and sciences, thereby increasing commensurability and falsifiability across all arts and sciences – producing a universal grammar and semantics and as such rendering all human knowledge more parsimonious and synthetic.
THE FAILURE OF PARADIGMS (WAYS OF THINKING)
There is a reason the world is continuously coalescing to the vocabulary and grammars of science: and that is because of the commensurability and therefore falsificationary value of the single most parsimonious vocabulary and grammar consisting entirely of continuous relations from the very small below human scale, through to human scale, to the very large beyond human scale – the semantics of which consist of analogies to observable experience: human scale.
Any idiot can come up with a paradigm that provides some sort of explanatory power, in the same way that a fairy tale, legend, or mythos provides explanatory power: by analogy. And idiots come up with new paradigms all the time, in an effort to elucidate some set of relations or other. And the they congratulate themselves on their insight and next seek to preserve that insight by justification: a forever-failing attempt to find a way for the rest of human knowledge to fit that paradigm. They over-invest. They fail.
It is quite different to start with an attempt to discover the grammar and semantics of science itself, and with that ambition to correct the minor incompatibilities between the arts and sciences, thereby increasing commensurability and falsifiability across all arts and sciences – producing a universal grammar and semantics and as such rendering all human knowledge more parsimonious and synthetic.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-16 11:18:00 UTC
MEANING (dimensional definition) (a) normative content (relations) (market) (b) habitual content (relations) (personal) (c) intentional content (relations) (d) extended (externalities) content (relations) (e) important (value) content (relations) A network of relations(associations) reducible to a network of analogies to experience. Where experience can refer to any combination of physical, emotional, and mental experiences. ETYMOLOGY: “INTEND” “intend, have in mind,” Old English mænan “to mean, intend, signify; tell, say; complain, lament,” from West Germanic *mainijan (source also of Old Frisian mena “to signify,” Old Saxon menian “to intend, signify, make known,” Dutch menen, German meinen “think, suppose, be of the opinion”), from PIE *meino- “opinion, intent” (source also of Old Church Slavonic meniti “to think, have an opinion,” Old Irish mian “wish, desire,” Welsh mwyn “enjoyment”), perhaps from root *men- (1) “to think.” Conversational question you know what I mean? attested by 1834.
MEANING (dimensional definition) (a) normative content (relations) (market) (b) habitual content (relations) (personal) (c) intentional content (relations) (d) extended (externalities) content (relations) (e) important (value) content (relations) A network of relations(associations) reducible to a network of analogies to experience. Where experience can refer to any combination of physical, emotional, and mental experiences. ETYMOLOGY: “INTEND” “intend, have in mind,” Old English mænan “to mean, intend, signify; tell, say; complain, lament,” from West Germanic *mainijan (source also of Old Frisian mena “to signify,” Old Saxon menian “to intend, signify, make known,” Dutch menen, German meinen “think, suppose, be of the opinion”), from PIE *meino- “opinion, intent” (source also of Old Church Slavonic meniti “to think, have an opinion,” Old Irish mian “wish, desire,” Welsh mwyn “enjoyment”), perhaps from root *men- (1) “to think.” Conversational question you know what I mean? attested by 1834.
Philosophy = Choice of preference and good. Science = existence, description and decidability. As such Propertarianism only states how to measure aesthetic content. However, there is a difference between that which is true, good, and preferable. You may not prefer the truth. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-14 18:32:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1007329830482870277
Reply addressees: @mightyboom_
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1007028131130216448
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1007028131130216448
DEFINITION OF MEANING
MEANING (dimensional definition)
(a) normative content (relations) (market)
(b) habitual content (relations) (personal)
(c) intentional content (relations)
(d) extended (externalities) content (relations)
(e) important (value) content (relations)
A network of relations(associations) reducible to a network of analogies to experience. Where experience can refer to any combination of physical, emotional, and mental experiences.
ETYMOLOGY: “INTEND”
“intend, have in mind,” Old English mænan “to mean, intend, signify; tell, say; complain, lament,” from West Germanic *mainijan (source also of Old Frisian mena “to signify,” Old Saxon menian “to intend, signify, make known,” Dutch menen, German meinen “think, suppose, be of the opinion”), from PIE *meino- “opinion, intent” (source also of Old Church Slavonic meniti “to think, have an opinion,” Old Irish mian “wish, desire,” Welsh mwyn “enjoyment”), perhaps from root *men- (1) “to think.” Conversational question you know what I mean? attested by 1834.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-14 08:00:00 UTC