Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • If you yourself cannot constrain yourself to operational language (strictly cons

    If you yourself cannot constrain yourself to operational language (strictly constructed grammar) in ordinary language, yet you treat formal grammars (mathematics: constant positional relations), and logic (constant semantic relations), and physics (constant physical state relations) as they should be; formal grammars – then you are holding a double standard. Why is it that you cannot write in, speak in, think in equally logical and scientific prose? Yet it is that inability to speak in equally scientific prose that leads you to the conclusions you hold. Thereby attributing to your own state authority that cannot exist because it lacks the rigor of those grammar and semantics that you refer to with authority? Why would intellectual history be complicated? Why is the physical world (subatomic, atomic, chemical, biological, sentient) not ‘simple’ in, that like higher mathematics, forms lie groups (externalities) that limit the permutations of the underlying grammar (operations) – and then this cycle repeats itself, producing in the physical world, what we call sciences at every hierarchy of chose limits? All I have really done is state that: (a) via negativa is all that we can search for. What remains (as in markets) is a truth candidate. And we are actually quite good at falsification (criticism). (b) that the logics, sciences, and ethics serve only as via-negativa deflationary grammars (processes of continuous disambiguation) that remove ambiguity and error. (c) that the operational revolution failed in the 20th century due to lagging justificationism, and that the hard sciences adopted it, and that the law has always adhered to it, and that operational grammar serves as a deflationary grammar that falsifies (disambiguates) fictionalisms (fiction, pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism, supernaturalism. (d) that humans feel, reason, and act to acquire predictable categories, and that these categories are constant across all of us (given biases in the genders) – and without htat constancy we would not be able to empathize, and without being able to empathize, we would not be able to cooperate. I had to adapt or create a lot of terminology from all fields in order to produce an operational semantics (vocabulary) without resorting to continental ‘word fabrication’. And as such, it’s a bit unnatural and difficult to learn. But it is far better than colloquial or disciplinary vocabularies and their pretenses of knowledge – particularly their pretense of knowledge of existence.

  • If you yourself cannot constrain yourself to operational language (strictly cons

    If you yourself cannot constrain yourself to operational language (strictly constructed grammar) in ordinary language, yet you treat formal grammars (mathematics: constant positional relations), and logic (constant semantic relations), and physics (constant physical state relations) as they should be; formal grammars – then you are holding a double standard. Why is it that you cannot write in, speak in, think in equally logical and scientific prose? Yet it is that inability to speak in equally scientific prose that leads you to the conclusions you hold. Thereby attributing to your own state authority that cannot exist because it lacks the rigor of those grammar and semantics that you refer to with authority? Why would intellectual history be complicated? Why is the physical world (subatomic, atomic, chemical, biological, sentient) not ‘simple’ in, that like higher mathematics, forms lie groups (externalities) that limit the permutations of the underlying grammar (operations) – and then this cycle repeats itself, producing in the physical world, what we call sciences at every hierarchy of chose limits? All I have really done is state that: (a) via negativa is all that we can search for. What remains (as in markets) is a truth candidate. And we are actually quite good at falsification (criticism). (b) that the logics, sciences, and ethics serve only as via-negativa deflationary grammars (processes of continuous disambiguation) that remove ambiguity and error. (c) that the operational revolution failed in the 20th century due to lagging justificationism, and that the hard sciences adopted it, and that the law has always adhered to it, and that operational grammar serves as a deflationary grammar that falsifies (disambiguates) fictionalisms (fiction, pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism, supernaturalism. (d) that humans feel, reason, and act to acquire predictable categories, and that these categories are constant across all of us (given biases in the genders) – and without htat constancy we would not be able to empathize, and without being able to empathize, we would not be able to cooperate. I had to adapt or create a lot of terminology from all fields in order to produce an operational semantics (vocabulary) without resorting to continental ‘word fabrication’. And as such, it’s a bit unnatural and difficult to learn. But it is far better than colloquial or disciplinary vocabularies and their pretenses of knowledge – particularly their pretense of knowledge of existence.

  • “Truth is temporal, not absolute”— Try to say that without appealing to platon

    —“Truth is temporal, not absolute”—

    Try to say that without appealing to platonism. You wont be able to. Why?

    If you can’t state the means of a things existence without the verb to be, then you do not know of what you speak. Reliance on the verb to-be (is, are, was, were etc) violates strict grammatical construction in our high precision, low context language.

    When you say that rules of logic include a litany of fallacies, again, you refer to violations in the compatibility of semantic content and the deflationary grammars (logics) with which we test commensurability of states (statements).

    In other words: word games.

    Let me state it better for you (as I did in the opening sentence)

    The information (semantics: consisting of networks of constant relations) we rely upon, must of necessity include symbols (referrers, terms, words), that serve as categories (general rules of arbitrary precision), that as such categorical aggregates, exclude (disambiguate) our experience of the universe. Ergo: our knowledge remains incomplete. And our language remains imprecise – including ignorance, error bias, and deceit. So in any attempt at testing one’s testimony, we must test the constant relations in each perceivable dimension of reality, and across all dimensions of perceivable reality. And to do so we require multiple grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation).

    So when you speak of logic(words) and science(actions) and sympathetic tests of rationality (rewards), you speak of the three (and only three) categories of grammatical tests we can employ in order to speak without ignorance error, bias, and deceit: truthfully.

    We speak (testify) truthfully or we do not.

    WORDS(LOGIC)

    1.1- Categorical: We may testify to tautology and in that case must speak THE truth. We have no alternative.

    1.2 – Logical: We may testify to internal consistency within a given grammar. As such we speak truthfully if and only if argument (formula, proof) is (exists as) internally consistent (consisting of constant relations between states).

    ACTIONS(SCIENCE)

    2.1 – Empirical: We may testify to external correspondence if and only if we find external correspondence, sufficiency and parsimony.

    2.2 – Operational: we may testify to the existential possibility of sequence of operations only if we can describe changes in state of constant relations due to a sequence of operations.

    RATIONAL (INCENTIVES)

    3.1- Rational: We may testify to the rationality of choice if and only if we sympathetically test the incentives under sufficiency and parsimony.

    3.2 – Moral: we may testify to the morality (Crime, ethics, morality) of any action or its consequences by tests of the productive, fully informed, voluntary, (and warrantied) transfer of that which individuals have acted to obtain an interest.

    We cannot know the Truth (the most parsimonious speech possible)

    We can know Truthfulness (survival of due diligence in the dimensions of perceivable reality.

    And we do that by the production of grammars that force us to continuously disambiguate our categories of perception into those categories that disambiguous describe reality.

    Slowly we get there….

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-25 10:30:00 UTC

  • “Truth is temporal, not absolute”— Try to say that without appealing to platon

    —“Truth is temporal, not absolute”— Try to say that without appealing to platonism. You wont be able to. Why? If you can’t state the means of a things existence without the verb to be, then you do not know of what you speak. Reliance on the verb to-be (is, are, was, were etc) violates strict grammatical construction in our high precision, low context language. When you say that rules of logic include a litany of fallacies, again, you refer to violations in the compatibility of semantic content and the deflationary grammars (logics) with which we test commensurability of states (statements). In other words: word games. Let me state it better for you (as I did in the opening sentence) The information (semantics: consisting of networks of constant relations) we rely upon, must of necessity include symbols (referrers, terms, words), that serve as categories (general rules of arbitrary precision), that as such categorical aggregates, exclude (disambiguate) our experience of the universe. Ergo: our knowledge remains incomplete. And our language remains imprecise – including ignorance, error bias, and deceit. So in any attempt at testing one’s testimony, we must test the constant relations in each perceivable dimension of reality, and across all dimensions of perceivable reality. And to do so we require multiple grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation). So when you speak of logic(words) and science(actions) and sympathetic tests of rationality (rewards), you speak of the three (and only three) categories of grammatical tests we can employ in order to speak without ignorance error, bias, and deceit: truthfully. We speak (testify) truthfully or we do not. WORDS(LOGIC) 1.1- Categorical: We may testify to tautology and in that case must speak THE truth. We have no alternative. 1.2 – Logical: We may testify to internal consistency within a given grammar. As such we speak truthfully if and only if argument (formula, proof) is (exists as) internally consistent (consisting of constant relations between states). ACTIONS(SCIENCE) 2.1 – Empirical: We may testify to external correspondence if and only if we find external correspondence, sufficiency and parsimony. 2.2 – Operational: we may testify to the existential possibility of sequence of operations only if we can describe changes in state of constant relations due to a sequence of operations. RATIONAL (INCENTIVES) 3.1- Rational: We may testify to the rationality of choice if and only if we sympathetically test the incentives under sufficiency and parsimony. 3.2 – Moral: we may testify to the morality (Crime, ethics, morality) of any action or its consequences by tests of the productive, fully informed, voluntary, (and warrantied) transfer of that which individuals have acted to obtain an interest. We cannot know the Truth (the most parsimonious speech possible) We can know Truthfulness (survival of due diligence in the dimensions of perceivable reality. And we do that by the production of grammars that force us to continuously disambiguate our categories of perception into those categories that disambiguous describe reality. Slowly we get there….

  • “Truth is temporal, not absolute”— Try to say that without appealing to platon

    —“Truth is temporal, not absolute”— Try to say that without appealing to platonism. You wont be able to. Why? If you can’t state the means of a things existence without the verb to be, then you do not know of what you speak. Reliance on the verb to-be (is, are, was, were etc) violates strict grammatical construction in our high precision, low context language. When you say that rules of logic include a litany of fallacies, again, you refer to violations in the compatibility of semantic content and the deflationary grammars (logics) with which we test commensurability of states (statements). In other words: word games. Let me state it better for you (as I did in the opening sentence) The information (semantics: consisting of networks of constant relations) we rely upon, must of necessity include symbols (referrers, terms, words), that serve as categories (general rules of arbitrary precision), that as such categorical aggregates, exclude (disambiguate) our experience of the universe. Ergo: our knowledge remains incomplete. And our language remains imprecise – including ignorance, error bias, and deceit. So in any attempt at testing one’s testimony, we must test the constant relations in each perceivable dimension of reality, and across all dimensions of perceivable reality. And to do so we require multiple grammars (rules of continuous disambiguation). So when you speak of logic(words) and science(actions) and sympathetic tests of rationality (rewards), you speak of the three (and only three) categories of grammatical tests we can employ in order to speak without ignorance error, bias, and deceit: truthfully. We speak (testify) truthfully or we do not. WORDS(LOGIC) 1.1- Categorical: We may testify to tautology and in that case must speak THE truth. We have no alternative. 1.2 – Logical: We may testify to internal consistency within a given grammar. As such we speak truthfully if and only if argument (formula, proof) is (exists as) internally consistent (consisting of constant relations between states). ACTIONS(SCIENCE) 2.1 – Empirical: We may testify to external correspondence if and only if we find external correspondence, sufficiency and parsimony. 2.2 – Operational: we may testify to the existential possibility of sequence of operations only if we can describe changes in state of constant relations due to a sequence of operations. RATIONAL (INCENTIVES) 3.1- Rational: We may testify to the rationality of choice if and only if we sympathetically test the incentives under sufficiency and parsimony. 3.2 – Moral: we may testify to the morality (Crime, ethics, morality) of any action or its consequences by tests of the productive, fully informed, voluntary, (and warrantied) transfer of that which individuals have acted to obtain an interest. We cannot know the Truth (the most parsimonious speech possible) We can know Truthfulness (survival of due diligence in the dimensions of perceivable reality. And we do that by the production of grammars that force us to continuously disambiguate our categories of perception into those categories that disambiguous describe reality. Slowly we get there….

  • Do You Think That Postmodernism Has Had A Negative Or Positive Effect On Education, Especially In Literature Classes?

    Postmodernism can be best understood in the context of a revolt against science and reason, that is a repetition of the enlightenment revolt against empiricism, and the ancient world’s revolt against reason.

    THE GENERATIONAL REVOLTS AGAINST SCIENCE, REASON, AND TRUTH

    4 – The Revolt Against Science – Using Publishing and Major Media (19th-20th)
    Marxism/Freudianism/Boazianism(Pseudoscience) > Cultural Marxism(Propaganda) > Postmodernism (Pseudo-rationalism: denial of reality, logic, science and truth.)

    3 – The Revolt Against Empiricism – Using the Printing Press (17th-18th)
    Rousseau(Literary) > Kant(Rationalism) > Continental Philosophy(“Moral Fictionalism”) – the attempt to recreate Germanicized Christianity in secular prose.

    2 -The Revolt Against Reason – Using Writing and Pulpit (1st-7th)
    The reaction to greek idealism and adoption by Rabbinical Judaism (Revolt against the rationality and aristocracy) > Christianity(undermine from within) > Islam (conquer). The revolt of the pastoralists against the Agrarians.

    1- The Revolt Against The Invention of Aristocracy – Using “Writings of the Gods” (~1500bc)
    The European vs Indo-Iranian divide and the invention of scriptural religion.

    So, we see the same process of destruction of Western Civilization, by the same means the the great civilizations of the ancient world were destroyed by Christianity (western roman empire), and Islam (Byzantium, North Africa, Persia, and Levantine – creating the Abrahamic Dark Age.

    POSTMODERNISM IS A REVOLT AGAINST SCIENCE, REASON, AND TRUTH. SO, HOW CAN IT BE ANYTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE ANOTHER DARK AGE?

    https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-that-postmodernism-has-had-a-negative-or-positive-effect-on-education-especially-in-literature-classes

  • Do You Think That Postmodernism Has Had A Negative Or Positive Effect On Education, Especially In Literature Classes?

    Postmodernism can be best understood in the context of a revolt against science and reason, that is a repetition of the enlightenment revolt against empiricism, and the ancient world’s revolt against reason.

    THE GENERATIONAL REVOLTS AGAINST SCIENCE, REASON, AND TRUTH

    4 – The Revolt Against Science – Using Publishing and Major Media (19th-20th)
    Marxism/Freudianism/Boazianism(Pseudoscience) > Cultural Marxism(Propaganda) > Postmodernism (Pseudo-rationalism: denial of reality, logic, science and truth.)

    3 – The Revolt Against Empiricism – Using the Printing Press (17th-18th)
    Rousseau(Literary) > Kant(Rationalism) > Continental Philosophy(“Moral Fictionalism”) – the attempt to recreate Germanicized Christianity in secular prose.

    2 -The Revolt Against Reason – Using Writing and Pulpit (1st-7th)
    The reaction to greek idealism and adoption by Rabbinical Judaism (Revolt against the rationality and aristocracy) > Christianity(undermine from within) > Islam (conquer). The revolt of the pastoralists against the Agrarians.

    1- The Revolt Against The Invention of Aristocracy – Using “Writings of the Gods” (~1500bc)
    The European vs Indo-Iranian divide and the invention of scriptural religion.

    So, we see the same process of destruction of Western Civilization, by the same means the the great civilizations of the ancient world were destroyed by Christianity (western roman empire), and Islam (Byzantium, North Africa, Persia, and Levantine – creating the Abrahamic Dark Age.

    POSTMODERNISM IS A REVOLT AGAINST SCIENCE, REASON, AND TRUTH. SO, HOW CAN IT BE ANYTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE ANOTHER DARK AGE?

    https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-that-postmodernism-has-had-a-negative-or-positive-effect-on-education-especially-in-literature-classes

  • “So. The other day I was running & it clicked for me: It really is all about sto

    —“So. The other day I was running & it clicked for me: It really is all about stopping lies. If we tolerate lies, and liars, eventually we will be ruled by the best liars telling the biggest lies. (And the best liars are ((())), 0-+, and <-0-+ . And the French – but I repeat myself.) My second thought was “Great. I’m just now fully comprehending what Curt was posting 3 years ago.” Anyway, welcome back to Facebook. You’ve been missed.”– A Friend

  • “So. The other day I was running & it clicked for me: It really is all about sto

    —“So. The other day I was running & it clicked for me:

    It really is all about stopping lies. If we tolerate lies, and liars, eventually we will be ruled by the best liars telling the biggest lies.

    (And the best liars are ((())), 0-+, and <-0-+ . And the French – but I repeat myself.)

    My second thought was “Great. I’m just now fully comprehending what Curt was posting 3 years ago.”

    Anyway, welcome back to Facebook.

    You’ve been missed.”– A Friend

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-22 11:22:00 UTC

  • “So. The other day I was running & it clicked for me: It really is all about sto

    —“So. The other day I was running & it clicked for me: It really is all about stopping lies. If we tolerate lies, and liars, eventually we will be ruled by the best liars telling the biggest lies. (And the best liars are ((())), 0-+, and <-0-+ . And the French – but I repeat myself.) My second thought was “Great. I’m just now fully comprehending what Curt was posting 3 years ago.” Anyway, welcome back to Facebook. You’ve been missed.”– A Friend