Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • Q: What Do You Mean by ‘Serialization’?

    Oct 25, 2019, 12:30 PM “CURT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ‘SERIALIZATION’?” (important)

    —“What is serialization?”—Duke Newcomb

    (From the P-Method of “Disambiguation, Serialization, and Operationalization”) Before using a term, define the term, by researching the etymology of the term (history), then collecting all synonyms and antonyms (and etymology) and organizing them into one or more series by common properties. We use serialization to force disambiguation between terms that appear similar but are not. This is how we converted common language into a system of measurement, and expose our errors, and our ignorance, and most sophisms whether a deceit-fallacy, ideal-verbal, pseudoscientific-magical, or supernatural-occult Examples using ‘True’: DUE DILIGENCE AS CONSTANT RELATION tautologically true, idealistically true, testimonially(really) true, honestly true, impulsively true. and: DECIDABILITY AS CONSTANT RELATION incomprehensible, comprehensible(understandable), agreement(on understanding), preferential(for me), good(mutually preferential), testimonially true (decidable); ideally true(logically), or tautologically true(identical). Some Other Examples on our site, particularly after item seven: https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/the-cheat-sheet/ It’s sort of like (exactly like) creating a number line, or a series of points on a line. The number line creates a system of measurement by some underlying constant relation (in the case of numbers, position), and then points on a line which test conformity to the constant relation (constant positional relation between n-dimensional positions. Operationalism is a bit harder: writing complete sentences as transactions with a consistent point of view, in ePrime. Testimonial Operationalism is a bit harder: writing those same complete sentences as promissory observations, Operationalism into Acquisition, Property-in-toto, and Reciprocity is a bit harder. This requires you start using economics of human behavior. But once you get there by combining serialization, operationalism, and acquisitionism, you have the formal logic of all human language – a universal commensurable system of measurement for human speech. The Grammars just provide a sort of equivalent to the table of fundamental particles, the periodic table of the elements, the dimensions of geometry, for language, and with the Grammars you can learn rather easily This is why I usually refer to the P-Method as the ‘Geometry of Thought”. Because just as Descartes restored mathematics to geometry, I’m restoring language to geometry: real (aristotle), constant relations(engineering), instead of ideal (platonic) constant relations, or supernatural(semitic) constant relations (astrology). However this big picture of the differences caused by the civilizational origins of their thought and it’s incorporation into the their rationalizations and language, and metaphycis,a nd habits, is invisible to almost everyone. I just write it here so the few who might want to see that pattern can discover it. -Curt

  • Q: What Do You Mean by ‘Serialization’?

    Oct 25, 2019, 12:30 PM “CURT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ‘SERIALIZATION’?” (important)

    —“What is serialization?”—Duke Newcomb

    (From the P-Method of “Disambiguation, Serialization, and Operationalization”) Before using a term, define the term, by researching the etymology of the term (history), then collecting all synonyms and antonyms (and etymology) and organizing them into one or more series by common properties. We use serialization to force disambiguation between terms that appear similar but are not. This is how we converted common language into a system of measurement, and expose our errors, and our ignorance, and most sophisms whether a deceit-fallacy, ideal-verbal, pseudoscientific-magical, or supernatural-occult Examples using ‘True’: DUE DILIGENCE AS CONSTANT RELATION tautologically true, idealistically true, testimonially(really) true, honestly true, impulsively true. and: DECIDABILITY AS CONSTANT RELATION incomprehensible, comprehensible(understandable), agreement(on understanding), preferential(for me), good(mutually preferential), testimonially true (decidable); ideally true(logically), or tautologically true(identical). Some Other Examples on our site, particularly after item seven: https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/the-cheat-sheet/ It’s sort of like (exactly like) creating a number line, or a series of points on a line. The number line creates a system of measurement by some underlying constant relation (in the case of numbers, position), and then points on a line which test conformity to the constant relation (constant positional relation between n-dimensional positions. Operationalism is a bit harder: writing complete sentences as transactions with a consistent point of view, in ePrime. Testimonial Operationalism is a bit harder: writing those same complete sentences as promissory observations, Operationalism into Acquisition, Property-in-toto, and Reciprocity is a bit harder. This requires you start using economics of human behavior. But once you get there by combining serialization, operationalism, and acquisitionism, you have the formal logic of all human language – a universal commensurable system of measurement for human speech. The Grammars just provide a sort of equivalent to the table of fundamental particles, the periodic table of the elements, the dimensions of geometry, for language, and with the Grammars you can learn rather easily This is why I usually refer to the P-Method as the ‘Geometry of Thought”. Because just as Descartes restored mathematics to geometry, I’m restoring language to geometry: real (aristotle), constant relations(engineering), instead of ideal (platonic) constant relations, or supernatural(semitic) constant relations (astrology). However this big picture of the differences caused by the civilizational origins of their thought and it’s incorporation into the their rationalizations and language, and metaphycis,a nd habits, is invisible to almost everyone. I just write it here so the few who might want to see that pattern can discover it. -Curt

  • Converting Kant’s Apriorism to Science(testimony)

    A Priori: “independent of observation.” There are three dimensions to a priori truth claims: i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori, ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and iii) Necessity vs Contingency Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims. (a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof. (c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren. (b) “General” Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation. (d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.” This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision: (a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori (b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori (c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori (d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori Nothing more to be said. We now have converted kantian apriorism to scientific and testimonial prose and in doing so explained the relationship between Testimonials and Kantian apriorism, and in doing so the increase in precision under P, increase in testability under P, and ended Kant’s attempt to undermine our ability to falsify and his attempt at preservation of christian and church authority. You may not yet grasp why that paragraph is so, but you will.

  • Converting Kant’s Apriorism to Science(testimony)

    A Priori: “independent of observation.” There are three dimensions to a priori truth claims: i) Aprioricity vs A posteriori, ii) Analyticity vs Syntheticity, and iii) Necessity vs Contingency Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims. (a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: 2+2=4 and all deductions thereof. (c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: Childless women will have no grandchildren. (b) “General” Synthetic A Priori : Increasing money increases inflation. (d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.” This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision: (a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori (b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori (c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori (d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori Nothing more to be said. We now have converted kantian apriorism to scientific and testimonial prose and in doing so explained the relationship between Testimonials and Kantian apriorism, and in doing so the increase in precision under P, increase in testability under P, and ended Kant’s attempt to undermine our ability to falsify and his attempt at preservation of christian and church authority. You may not yet grasp why that paragraph is so, but you will.

  • “Lying, fraud, libel, slander, misrepresentation, misleading, suggestion, loadin

    —“Lying, fraud, libel, slander, misrepresentation, misleading, suggestion, loading, framing, obscuring, baiting into hazard, advocacy of, conspiracy of, involuntary transfer, is illegal. All speech is promissory, testimony, and is warrantied, and you’re liable for its consequences.”—Even simpler version

  • “Lying, fraud, libel, slander, misrepresentation, misleading, suggestion, loadin

    —“Lying, fraud, libel, slander, misrepresentation, misleading, suggestion, loading, framing, obscuring, baiting into hazard, advocacy of, conspiracy of, involuntary transfer, is illegal. All speech is promissory, testimony, and is warrantied, and you’re liable for its consequences.”—Even simpler version

  • Usury

    Usury https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/usury-2/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 12:48:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267437933612720135

  • Usury

    Usury https://t.co/iu16zRsPU2

  • Usury

    USURY (repost) Interest vs Usury. Interest is necessary for the organization of complex production. it is beneficial for production of generations. It is risky for the purpose of consumption. It is harmful for the production of entertainment. It is very harmful for the production of anti-social behaviors. What demarcates Interest from Usury? (a) credit for consumption rather than production. (b) borrower beware rather than lender beware. (c) collateral If lending is limited to production, lender risk, and un-recoverability for anything other than fraud, then it’s shared risk. And it increases use of stock markets where access to liquidity is possible instead of collateral recovery. The enemy’s technique consists of false promise, baiting in to moral hazard, pilpul, critique, and profiting from capture of hazards, and capitalizing those captures as systems of rents. Usury is the most common example of baiting into hazard, by the extension of credit for the purpose of consumption, the use of collateral, and the use of the court to transfer assets to the lender. The enemy’s technique uses every possible means of baiting into hazard, defending this bait by pilpul and critique, profiting from the hazard – both private and public – then taking the accumulated capital and seeking rents against the population until they revolt and prosecute their revenge. … There is a reason this technique works with high trust europeans but not elsewhere. There is a reason it works with women and underclasses but not established men. Because our democracy makes us vulnerable to false promise, and the underclasses are easily baited by false promise, we are tolerant of meritocracy until too late. Worse, it is easiest to exploit our social order of MARKETS and LAGGING legal codes in defense of those markets and our people. And lagging technology for replacing each of the means of parasitism: financial, commercial, educational, informational, political, social, normative, and traditional

  • Disambiguation of ‘rational’

      Rational choice(as in reasonable) within the limits of knowledge and ability, not rational(logical) as in logical when possessed of sufficient information (justification), or rationalism using logic and tests of non-contradiction (textual or linguistic argument). Free Association … Competing Hypotheses … … Rational Choice (reasonable) … … … Logical Conclusion … … … … Using philosophical Rationalism