Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEBATE, NEGOTIATION, AND PROSECUTION SERIES: Intelligible

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEBATE, NEGOTIATION, AND PROSECUTION

    SERIES: Intelligible > imaginable(believable) > reasonable > rational > justificationary > logical > calculable > tautological.

    1) On can rely on intuitionism and start with reason in order to construct calculation, or one can start with logic explain calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs), and devolve calculation into increasingly incommensurable (deflated, inflated, conflated, fictionalized) categories, until we define the unintelligible.

    2) We can start optimistically with an attempt at negotiation and therefore cooperation, leaving open one’s choice of preference, or we can start pessimistically with prosecution and therefore and therefore a threat, leaving decidability (Truth) as the only means of escape.

    3) In the market and in philosophy we can choose, in law and the court we cannot, because if you cannot testify to it – which is what empiricism is reducible to – you cannot defend yourself from prosecution with it.

    So as I write natural law, I don’t negotiate, I prosecute.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-05 08:40:00 UTC

  • It Is Very Hard Not to Specialize – for Now

      At our stage of development when we are at an in-between stage, and very nearly at the limit of our ability to construct tools (experiments) by which to conduct observations (measurements), yet unable to discover the pattern of relations that describe the next levels of complexity (the structure of the universe on one end and sentience on the other, and where we have all but exhausted research into subjects at human scale, we have passed the point at which one can spend enough time on enough subjects to master their application. It is however possible to master the fundamental patterns that cross all disciplines. The reason being that there are a very small number of fundamental laws. And to some degree the grammar and semantics we are searching for, consists of that set of categories, relations, values and operations (transforms).

  • It Is Very Hard Not to Specialize – for Now

      At our stage of development when we are at an in-between stage, and very nearly at the limit of our ability to construct tools (experiments) by which to conduct observations (measurements), yet unable to discover the pattern of relations that describe the next levels of complexity (the structure of the universe on one end and sentience on the other, and where we have all but exhausted research into subjects at human scale, we have passed the point at which one can spend enough time on enough subjects to master their application. It is however possible to master the fundamental patterns that cross all disciplines. The reason being that there are a very small number of fundamental laws. And to some degree the grammar and semantics we are searching for, consists of that set of categories, relations, values and operations (transforms).

  • Um. I think you’ll at least understand my restatement of history, once you under

    Um. I think you’ll at least understand my restatement of history, once you understand deflationary and critical vs inflationary, conflationary, and fictional grammars.

    I am tracking the technologies of truth and deception, and group evolutionary strategy using those grammars, just as you would track the history of linguistics, genes, pottery, or metallurgy.

    And I track economics not literature.

    And I understand that man seizes opportunities then justifies them.

    And I understand the desire for literature in some classes and results in other classes throughout history.

    And once you have these understandings, you also attribute very different values and incentives to historical events, just as knowledge of science forced us to rewrite our understanding and history.

    Now, you might say I err, but do I err, but it’s extremely unlikely that I err. Because we need do nothing more than study the economics (incentives), and grammars (excuses) to determine whether people acted morally in fact, or immorally, casting themselves as moral.

    I am not misguided. My understanding of history is very clearly, the initiation of indo europeans, and the socially destabilizing counter-revolutions against their innovations, because meritocracy, reciprocity, sovereignty, and markets are a threat to every single old order.

    The problem that you’ll face is providing superior explanatory power with greater parsimony, without appealing to knowledge that can’t exist in time and space.

    You don’t know that (yet).

    but that’s what you’re dealing with.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-03 12:21:00 UTC

  • Where do you draw the line?

    —“Where do you draw the line? Which are animals of pure determinism and which a men of will?”—Colin Everett Truthful speech. See? Easy.

  • Where do you draw the line?

    —“Where do you draw the line? Which are animals of pure determinism and which a men of will?”—Colin Everett Truthful speech. See? Easy.

  • Deception by Conflation: Inflating Authority

    There is no such thing as legitimacy other than the legitimacy of a child. There is no such thing as validity other than a stamp of certification. In argument there is only soundness, and soundness is not a proxy for true, simply for reasonableness – meaning it’s understandable and so far not false.

  • Deception by Conflation: Inflating Authority

    There is no such thing as legitimacy other than the legitimacy of a child. There is no such thing as validity other than a stamp of certification. In argument there is only soundness, and soundness is not a proxy for true, simply for reasonableness – meaning it’s understandable and so far not false.

  • Existence

    —“It’s worth distinguishing between the knowledge of a referrer and the existence of its referent. We clearly know of the referrer (concept) we call ‘unicorn’, and might someday be able to bring some approximation of a unicorn into existence as a referent. The referent of the referrer ‘unicorn’ is not real, meaning it does not exist insofar as there isn’t a thing you can point to in the world and say ‘this is what I mean’.”–Trent Fowler Knowledge(know,knowing) is a verb – an action – not a noun (thing). Knowledge exists as long as a living mind exists to hold it, or a record of knowledge exists that is reconstructable into knowledge (experience), just as running exists only while a person runs. Knowledge of a unicorn exists, and we label such knowledge a ‘concept’ which means some category or other of referrer. Knowledge of concepts exists, but concepts do not. Knowledge of unicorns exists, but unicorns do not. Horses exist. Dinosaurs did exist, but other than their descendants: reptiles and birds do not.

  • Existence

    —“It’s worth distinguishing between the knowledge of a referrer and the existence of its referent. We clearly know of the referrer (concept) we call ‘unicorn’, and might someday be able to bring some approximation of a unicorn into existence as a referent. The referent of the referrer ‘unicorn’ is not real, meaning it does not exist insofar as there isn’t a thing you can point to in the world and say ‘this is what I mean’.”–Trent Fowler Knowledge(know,knowing) is a verb – an action – not a noun (thing). Knowledge exists as long as a living mind exists to hold it, or a record of knowledge exists that is reconstructable into knowledge (experience), just as running exists only while a person runs. Knowledge of a unicorn exists, and we label such knowledge a ‘concept’ which means some category or other of referrer. Knowledge of concepts exists, but concepts do not. Knowledge of unicorns exists, but unicorns do not. Horses exist. Dinosaurs did exist, but other than their descendants: reptiles and birds do not.