Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • Illegal, Not Illegal, And Legal.

    (Friend reminds me this is beneath my purview. This post is not about weed, but about markets and the scope of permissible behavior under law.) A Post on ‘weed’ reminded me to make an important point: We do not choose between ILLEGAL, and LEGAL … … but between: ILLEGAL, NOT-ILLEGAL, and LEGAL: SEQUENCE: 0 – Bearable but not Usable ( Grandfathered ) 1 – Usable but not producible ( Personal ) 2 – Producible but not exchangeable, (Private) 3 – Exchangeable but not commercial, (Hobby Market) 4 – Commercial but not industrial, (Craft Market) 5 – Industrial but regulated, (Commercial Market) 6 – Industrial but unregulated (Almost Never). IMO ‘weed’ should have been made not-illegal in Private and Commons but not in Markets. In other words, producible, exchangeable, but not marketable. Commercialization was a mistake. And it was (measurably) unnecessary.

  • ILLEGAL, NOT ILLEGAL, AND LEGAL. (Friend reminds me this is beneath my purview.

    ILLEGAL, NOT ILLEGAL, AND LEGAL.

    (Friend reminds me this is beneath my purview. This post is not about weed, but about markets and the scope of permissible behavior under law.)

    A Post on ‘weed’ reminded me to make an important point:

    We do not choose between ILLEGAL, and LEGAL …

    … but between:

    ILLEGAL, NOT-ILLEGAL, and LEGAL:

    SEQUENCE:

    0 – Bearable but not Usable ( Grandfathered )

    1 – Usable but not producible ( Personal )

    2 – Producible but not exchangeable, (Private)

    3 – Exchangeable but not commercial, (Hobby Market)

    4 – Commercial but not industrial, (Craft Market)

    5 – Industrial but regulated, (Commercial Market)

    6 – Industrial but unregulated (Almost Never).

    IMO ‘weed’ should have been made not-illegal in Private and Commons but not in Markets. In other words, producible, exchangeable, but not marketable. Commercialization was a mistake. And it was (measurably) unnecessary.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-02 16:33:00 UTC

  • Illegal, Not Illegal, And Legal.

    (Friend reminds me this is beneath my purview. This post is not about weed, but about markets and the scope of permissible behavior under law.) A Post on ‘weed’ reminded me to make an important point: We do not choose between ILLEGAL, and LEGAL … … but between: ILLEGAL, NOT-ILLEGAL, and LEGAL: SEQUENCE: 0 – Bearable but not Usable ( Grandfathered ) 1 – Usable but not producible ( Personal ) 2 – Producible but not exchangeable, (Private) 3 – Exchangeable but not commercial, (Hobby Market) 4 – Commercial but not industrial, (Craft Market) 5 – Industrial but regulated, (Commercial Market) 6 – Industrial but unregulated (Almost Never). IMO ‘weed’ should have been made not-illegal in Private and Commons but not in Markets. In other words, producible, exchangeable, but not marketable. Commercialization was a mistake. And it was (measurably) unnecessary.

  • “When you use the words 1) true, and 2) truth, what do you mean by them? And 3)

    —“When you use the words 1) true, and 2) truth, what do you mean by them? And 3) is it possible for such a thing as you mean to exist?”— 0 – Identity(Tautology) Description: True(correspondent, consistent, existential, coherent) vs False (non-correspondent, inconsistent, non-existential, or incoherent) [Truth proper] 1 – Calculation: True(without error) versus false(with error) [analytic truth] [axiomatic] 2 – Deduction(induction): True (without error) versus False (with error) [ logical truth] [axiomatic] 3 – Description( identity) : that description, definition, you would give if you possessed perfect knowledge, perfect vocabular, perfect grammar, and specified perfect limits and scope. [Ideal truth] [theoretic] 4 – Narration: True(correct) versus False(incorrect). [testimonial truth] [ theoretic] 5 – Legal Judgement: Right(non-imposition) versus Wrong(imposition) [legal right and wrong] [empirical] 6 – Judgement: Right(correct) versus Wrong(incorrect) [moral right and wrong] [rational] 7 – Normative Judgement: Right(obedient) vs Wrong(disobedient) [normative right and wrong] [habitual] Truth consists of speech that preserves constant relations in any grammar of decidability that we have produced, whether categorical, algorithmic, rational, narrative, legal, moral, or normative. Truth provides DECIDABILITY independent of preference or good, or norm. All these methods are existentially possible.

  • “When you use the words 1) true, and 2) truth, what do you mean by them? And 3)

    —“When you use the words 1) true, and 2) truth, what do you mean by them? And 3) is it possible for such a thing as you mean to exist?”—

    0 – Identity(Tautology) Description: True(correspondent, consistent, existential, coherent) vs False (non-correspondent, inconsistent, non-existential, or incoherent) [Truth proper]

    1 – Calculation: True(without error) versus false(with error) [analytic truth] [axiomatic]

    2 – Deduction(induction): True (without error) versus False (with error) [ logical truth] [axiomatic]

    3 – Description( identity) : that description, definition, you would give if you possessed perfect knowledge, perfect vocabular, perfect grammar, and specified perfect limits and scope. [Ideal truth] [theoretic]

    4 – Narration: True(correct) versus False(incorrect). [testimonial truth] [ theoretic]

    5 – Legal Judgement: Right(non-imposition) versus Wrong(imposition) [legal right and wrong] [empirical]

    6 – Judgement: Right(correct) versus Wrong(incorrect) [moral right and wrong] [rational]

    7 – Normative Judgement: Right(obedient) vs Wrong(disobedient) [normative right and wrong] [habitual]

    Truth consists of speech that preserves constant relations in any grammar of decidability that we have produced, whether categorical, algorithmic, rational, narrative, legal, moral, or normative.

    Truth provides DECIDABILITY independent of preference or good, or norm.

    All these methods are existentially possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-31 11:51:00 UTC

  • “When you use the words 1) true, and 2) truth, what do you mean by them? And 3)

    —“When you use the words 1) true, and 2) truth, what do you mean by them? And 3) is it possible for such a thing as you mean to exist?”— 0 – Identity(Tautology) Description: True(correspondent, consistent, existential, coherent) vs False (non-correspondent, inconsistent, non-existential, or incoherent) [Truth proper] 1 – Calculation: True(without error) versus false(with error) [analytic truth] [axiomatic] 2 – Deduction(induction): True (without error) versus False (with error) [ logical truth] [axiomatic] 3 – Description( identity) : that description, definition, you would give if you possessed perfect knowledge, perfect vocabular, perfect grammar, and specified perfect limits and scope. [Ideal truth] [theoretic] 4 – Narration: True(correct) versus False(incorrect). [testimonial truth] [ theoretic] 5 – Legal Judgement: Right(non-imposition) versus Wrong(imposition) [legal right and wrong] [empirical] 6 – Judgement: Right(correct) versus Wrong(incorrect) [moral right and wrong] [rational] 7 – Normative Judgement: Right(obedient) vs Wrong(disobedient) [normative right and wrong] [habitual] Truth consists of speech that preserves constant relations in any grammar of decidability that we have produced, whether categorical, algorithmic, rational, narrative, legal, moral, or normative. Truth provides DECIDABILITY independent of preference or good, or norm. All these methods are existentially possible.

  • Math Exists As A Logic, Not A Science.

    As far as I know, mathematics consists not of science but of a logic. A logic meaning a grammar of decidability. And in the case of mathematics, the grammar of decidability consists of reduction of all references to positional names, and therefore all relations to positional relations. And we can do so with an unlimited number of dimensions, A science is necessary when we do not know the first principles (causal relations) of phenomenon and seek to identify them. Science therefore consists of theories and laws. A logic is necessary when we do know the first principles (causal relations). Ergo, logics consist of axioms. You can declare an axiom, but only identify a law. Once a law is known you may model it with axioms. That I know of there are only two assumptions in mathematics, and both are necessary for the simple reason that independent of context (applied mathematics) we have no means of decidability in matters of scale independence. The law of the excluded middle. The need for choice. Mathematics is actually quite simple. Its that because it is so simple, consisting only of positional relations, we can describe any set of constant relations with it.

  • Math Exists As A Logic, Not A Science.

    As far as I know, mathematics consists not of science but of a logic. A logic meaning a grammar of decidability. And in the case of mathematics, the grammar of decidability consists of reduction of all references to positional names, and therefore all relations to positional relations. And we can do so with an unlimited number of dimensions, A science is necessary when we do not know the first principles (causal relations) of phenomenon and seek to identify them. Science therefore consists of theories and laws. A logic is necessary when we do know the first principles (causal relations). Ergo, logics consist of axioms. You can declare an axiom, but only identify a law. Once a law is known you may model it with axioms. That I know of there are only two assumptions in mathematics, and both are necessary for the simple reason that independent of context (applied mathematics) we have no means of decidability in matters of scale independence. The law of the excluded middle. The need for choice. Mathematics is actually quite simple. Its that because it is so simple, consisting only of positional relations, we can describe any set of constant relations with it.

  • “WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND LIBERTARIANISM?”— In **COMMUNISM

    —“WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND LIBERTARIANISM?”—

    In **COMMUNISM** private property is abolished in order to create exclusively *common* property. *(Rule By Discretion)*

    In **LIBERTARIANISM**, common property is abolished in order to create exclusively *private* property. *(Anarchy)*

    In **CLASSICAL LIBERALISM** (Rule of Law), the houses of government constitute a *market* for the voluntary production of commons between the people who pay for them with sacrifice of their private property. *(Rule of Law)*

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-29 11:09:00 UTC

  • “WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND LIBERTARIANISM?”— In **COMMUNISM

    —“WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND LIBERTARIANISM?”— In **COMMUNISM** private property is abolished in order to create exclusively *common* property. *(Rule By Discretion)* In **LIBERTARIANISM**, common property is abolished in order to create exclusively *private* property. *(Anarchy)* In **CLASSICAL LIBERALISM** (Rule of Law), the houses of government constitute a *market* for the voluntary production of commons between the people who pay for them with sacrifice of their private property. *(Rule of Law)*