Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • The Function of Propertarian Grammar

    THE FUNCTION OF PROPERTARIAN GRAMMAR by James Augustus With out factoring in IQ, most humans cannot (or struggle to) separate/deflate intuited self-interest (the elephant) from their perception (solipsism) —which is to say that the average human struggles to launder imaginary content from cognition and so they approach truthfulness as a function of rationalizing intuition. Those with masculinized, autistic brains benefit from the decreased cost of laundering imagination & emotional content from our perception, and reporting/testimony thereof. And (we) see the flaws (cognitive biases) in our thinking and especially in the testimony of others. And because of our ‘awareness’, we find it necessary to perform ‘test’/criticisms across multiple dimensions. Propertarian grammar boils down to just that—it limits us to constructing arguments that are open to criticism across multiple dimensions: terms/categories, logic, existential possibility, parsimony, full accounting, empirical correspondence, & reciprocity (natural law/social science). (Note: A person’s/group epistemological methodology [literary, hermeneutic, mythological, occultist, theological, rationalist, pseudo scientific, asymmetrical empiricism] is most often derivative of the lies they seek to tell.)

  • The Function of Propertarian Grammar

    THE FUNCTION OF PROPERTARIAN GRAMMAR by James Augustus With out factoring in IQ, most humans cannot (or struggle to) separate/deflate intuited self-interest (the elephant) from their perception (solipsism) —which is to say that the average human struggles to launder imaginary content from cognition and so they approach truthfulness as a function of rationalizing intuition. Those with masculinized, autistic brains benefit from the decreased cost of laundering imagination & emotional content from our perception, and reporting/testimony thereof. And (we) see the flaws (cognitive biases) in our thinking and especially in the testimony of others. And because of our ‘awareness’, we find it necessary to perform ‘test’/criticisms across multiple dimensions. Propertarian grammar boils down to just that—it limits us to constructing arguments that are open to criticism across multiple dimensions: terms/categories, logic, existential possibility, parsimony, full accounting, empirical correspondence, & reciprocity (natural law/social science). (Note: A person’s/group epistemological methodology [literary, hermeneutic, mythological, occultist, theological, rationalist, pseudo scientific, asymmetrical empiricism] is most often derivative of the lies they seek to tell.)

  • Your Method Tells Us Your Strategy

    YOUR METHODOLOGY TELLS US YOUR IQ AND EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY by James Augustus —“A person’s/group epistemological methodology [literary, hermeneutic, mythological, occultist, theological, rationalist, pseudo scientific, asymmetrical empiricism] is most often derivative of the lies they seek to tell.”— James Augustus

  • Your Method Tells Us Your Strategy

    YOUR METHODOLOGY TELLS US YOUR IQ AND EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY by James Augustus —“A person’s/group epistemological methodology [literary, hermeneutic, mythological, occultist, theological, rationalist, pseudo scientific, asymmetrical empiricism] is most often derivative of the lies they seek to tell.”— James Augustus

  • WRITING IN PARENTHETICALS, SERIES, AND AXES (grammar) I learned the technique of

    WRITING IN PARENTHETICALS, SERIES, AND AXES

    (grammar)

    I learned the technique of writing with series(sequences) and parenthetic parallels(like this) from Karl Popper (Critical Rationalism). And it was his adoption and use of of series rather than sets that distinguished Popper from the Analytic school. I did not understand originally what was superior about his approach to analytic philosophy, but I understood he had improved upon it. I only understood that he had identified that science was critical not justificationary (like morality and law), and that along with Hayek they were the first to grasp that social science like physical science, must be modeled as a problem of information, not an analogistic model from of prior generations(electricity, steam, water, mechanicals) – just as I understand our problem today is an artifact of industrialization and the attempt to manufacture identical units rather than ‘grow’ a portfolio of the best humans.

    Later I came to understand that both parenthetic parallels, series, and relations between axis (think supply demand curves), provided tests of the NECESSITY of meaning, rather than NORMATIVE or COLLOQUIAL meaning. In other words, they limit the reader (and the author) from malattribution of properties that occur in normative and colloquial, and particular, and ‘ignorant’ speech.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 11:48:00 UTC

  • SERIES: MODELS OF DECIDABILITY (very important)(advanced) Note: Michael Andrade

    SERIES: MODELS OF DECIDABILITY

    (very important)(advanced)

    Note: Michael Andrade teased me the other day for posting so many series, often without resolution. Why?

    Each series is an attempt at creating a proof. An attempt to create a set, series, sequence, spectrum, that increases the precision of every definition by its membership in that spectrum. I try to include as many terms as I can, and when something doesn’t fit, I add more dimensions. I record each ‘failed proof’, and some of them I’ve tried dozens of times – each time trying to take it to further clarity and precision. Eventually I end up with all terms defined on different spectra, and each spectra represents a causal axis – a universal law of man. It is from the identification of these axis that I test each other axis, and together develop an internally consistent and externally correspondent logical description of the laws that govern men’s impulses, thoughts, and actions.

    And while definitions are important for clear argument, and definitions in series (linear or otherwise) are the best we can achieve, that is not my end objective.

    Just as reality consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, mathematics consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, our methods of argument consist of dimensions and eventually result in pure relations. Just as mathematics consists of very simple operations, programming consists of very simple operations, chemistry consists of a very simple set of operations, the ‘theory of everything’ must eventually consist of very simple (deterministic) operations, also… in practice, the law of perfect reciprocity must also consist of a simple set of operations (we know that already from experience), and most importantly *argument* must consist of a very simple set of operations (it does), and a limited number of *dimensions* (it does). Moreover, just as languages vary from the primitive and high context (Chinese), to the advanced and low context (English/German), Arguments vary from universal context (human experiences), to high context (normative), to low context(natural law), to minimum-context’ (science, or ‘truthful’). And so just as we have sought the ‘law of chemistry’, and the law of nature (cooperation), we can seek the ‘law of sentience’. The law or argument. The law of communication. And with that law we can create arguments ever closer, and ideas ever closer, to correspondence with reality. And it is from correspondence with reality that we gain knowledge of reality – and from that knowledge, dominion over reality.

    SERIES: ARGUMENTS (COMMUNICATION)

    ==========================

    IMAGINARY (we should do )

    Occult Literature (Separatist Theology)(separate)(intuition – justify)

    Supernatural Literature (Theology)(organize organize by authority)(reason)

    Moral Literature (Philosophy)(organize by ideal)(rationalism)

    Literature (Allegory)(envision)

    DESCRIPTIVE (we have done)

    History (Analogy)(advise) (note: non-econ history is literature)

    Economics (Record) (evidence of cooperation)(advise)

    Law (Record)(evidence of conflict)

    Natural Law (Logic)(decide)

    Science (Truth )(learn)

    JUSTIFICATIONARY (we justify )

    Ratio-empirical-operational

    Ratio-Empirical

    Rational

    Reasonable

    Moral Normative

    EXPERIENTIAL (we feel)

    Sentimental

    Expressive

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 11:33:00 UTC

  • YOUR METHODOLOGY TELLS US YOUR IQ AND EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY by James Augustus —

    YOUR METHODOLOGY TELLS US YOUR IQ AND EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY

    by James Augustus

    —“A person’s/group epistemological methodology [literary, hermeneutic, mythological, occultist, theological, rationalist, pseudo scientific, asymmetrical empiricism] is most often derivative of the lies they seek to tell.”— James Augustus

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 15:53:00 UTC

  • THE FUNCTION OF PROPERTARIAN GRAMMAR by James Augustus With out factoring in IQ,

    THE FUNCTION OF PROPERTARIAN GRAMMAR

    by James Augustus

    With out factoring in IQ, most humans cannot (or struggle to) separate/deflate intuited self-interest (the elephant) from their perception (solipsism) —which is to say that the average human struggles to launder imaginary content from cognition and so they approach truthfulness as a function of rationalizing intuition.

    Those with masculinized, autistic brains benefit from the decreased cost of laundering imagination & emotional content from our perception, and reporting/testimony thereof. And (we) see the flaws (cognitive biases) in our thinking and especially in the testimony of others. And because of our ‘awareness’, we find it necessary to perform ‘test’/criticisms across multiple dimensions.

    Propertarian grammar boils down to just that—it limits us to constructing arguments that are open to criticism across multiple dimensions: terms/categories, logic, existential possibility, parsimony, full accounting, empirical correspondence, & reciprocity (natural law/social science).

    (Note: A person’s/group epistemological methodology [literary, hermeneutic, mythological, occultist, theological, rationalist, pseudo scientific, asymmetrical empiricism] is most often derivative of the lies they seek to tell.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 15:52:00 UTC

  • SPEAKING IN OPERATIONAL GRAMMAR IS A TEST OF AGENCY It is very hard to migrate f

    SPEAKING IN OPERATIONAL GRAMMAR IS A TEST OF AGENCY

    It is very hard to migrate from thinking in terms of:

    1 – meaning or experience to your self

    2 – empathy for or meaning to others

    3 – empathy with others intentions

    INTO

    4 – nothing but objective statements of incentives, actors, actions, and consequences.

    NOTE:

    The degree with which you can do this kind of speech is a DIRECT MEASURE OF YOUR OWN AGENCY.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 15:17:00 UTC

  • I AM NOT SURE PHILOSOPHY (LITERATURE) IS MUCH HELP (from elsewhere) It’s one thi

    I AM NOT SURE PHILOSOPHY (LITERATURE) IS MUCH HELP

    (from elsewhere)

    It’s one thing to suspect, another thing to do.

    Reading is hard.

    Arithmetic is harder is harder than reading.

    Accounting is harder than arithmetic.

    Programming is harder than accounting

    Natural Law is harder than programming.

    If you look at the people who have been with us for a long time everyone has gotten better at argument. Some can use the basic arguments. Some people can use the various series. But how many of us can write natural law in operational grammar?

    The beauty of Propertarainism is that it contains each of those levels: the historical argument, the causality of Acquisitionism (incentives), The epistemology of Testimonialism, the Ethics (and definitions of unethical) of Propertarianinism, the politics of Market Government, the competition of group evolutionary strategies, the aesthetics of transcendence …. and the logic, grammar, and rhetoric of natural law.

    There is something for everyone no matter their level of ability. But just as some people can do arithmetic, some accounting, some mathematics, some programming … only some will be able to write natural law (for example, like James Augustus does intuitively or Joel Davis approaches). Myself I think it is more important for most people to recognize and READ it (just as reading can be taught to most people) than it is to WRITE it (which requires far less effort and ability).

    The vast majority of people will learn propertarianism (natural law) from Eli, not me, and can be introduced by William Butchman or others.

    Those who can construct grammatical arguments, I think, will be those who come by it intuitively, or who have financial, legal, and programming experience, or who simply work hard at it like any other of the ‘logics’.

    The problem for those who study philosophy (literature), is that it is in fact just ‘literature’, and not a STEM discipline (science). And to some degree it anchors you just as religion anchors the theological. Natural Law, like programming, logic, and math, is a STEM discipline.

    The difference between programming and natural law is merely that the comparison tests (incentives) of man, and the operations (actions) of man, are mere ‘calculations’, and as such broader, and less limited than the ‘computations’ of machines.

    And while the machine checks our cognitive biases due to it’s rigid grammar, we must check ourselves in our arguments by checking our own grammar.

    And that is the very hardest part.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 13:58:00 UTC