THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRAMMAR AND MEANING
The ball is red. (“God language”)
I prefer red. (opinion)
I see a red ball. (statement)
I promise I see a red ball. (promise)
I sear that I see a red ball, and if you observe the same object you will agree that you also see a red ball. ( testimony)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-07 19:26:00 UTC
IDEOLOGIST, PHILOSOPHER, JUDGE, OR SCIENTIST?
Ideology(preference), Philosopher(good), Judge(True), Scientist (Measurement)
As far as I know:
Ideology = advocating for change within a context, or change of context.
Philosophy = Search for a method of decidability within a given context.
Truth = a method of decidability independent of context: The Law of Dispute Resolution.
Science = taking measurements that remove ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, fictionalism, and deception which are the natural states of man.
I work in Science (defining methods of measurement free of error, bias, wishful-thinking and deceit).
I work in Truth (defining universal methods of decidability)
I work in Philosophy (recommending a preferred organization of society.)
However, some people work only in philosophy, not in truth, or not in science. This list includes almost all philosophers.
I considered myself a scientist, who uses the framework of philosophy, and has united science and philosophy.
I think you must label yourself a scientist (researcher in measurements) or a judge (searcher for decidability), or a philosopher(search for preferences).
I seek to be a judge, in order to prevent harm by philosophers and ideologists. I seek to be a scientist to help me in my judgements. If this casts me as a philosopher, this is a matter of convention. I only state that one philosophy is good or true, and another is bad or false. It is up to others to choose theirs, just as it is up to me to choose mine.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-05 12:21:00 UTC
“WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ‘USING PARENTHETICALS’?”
The use of parenthesis (parentheticals) to carry on (communicate) related (parallel) meanings (definitions) so that we both (simultaneously) convey meaning (free association), but at the same time prevent misinterpretation (provide limits).
In other words we can carry on via positiva and via negativa in the same paragraph or sentence. Or that we may use colloquial verse, but include technical terms. It’s profoundly effective.
If you read Popper’s work he uses italics (which was criticized at the time) for similar purposes.
IMHO parentheticals solve the problem of choosing latin prose consisting of long sentences, consisting of many related phrases (which Claire Rae Randall has brought up recently), or separating two sides of an argument into separate paragraphs.
Latin prose tends to be poetic in order to prevent judgment until later phrases emerge (lincoln’s gettysburg address). This becomes increasingly difficult as we speak in increasingly technical terms.
So my opinion is that the parenthetical technique is evolving as our grammatical solution to conceptual density in technical matters, where we can more easily communicate such concepts without burdening and confusing the audience with ‘hanging incomplete ideas’ (separate paragraphs), or too many hanging incomplete ideas (many phrases), by simply limiting each positive concept as its being used (via parentheticals).
But the operational definition would be to provide both meanings in common prose and limits in parentheticals or the reverse: provide precise terms in prose, and common examples in parenthesis, in the same sentence structure.
Now if you read Frank’s comments on other’s posts, at all you’ll see him do both Precise/Example, and Common/Technical at the same time.
This turns out to be what I suggest, is an almost perfect grammar. Or rather, the next evolution of grammar as we increase informaitonal density.
Because like the common law, it ‘corrects’ or ‘informs’ you immediately without requiring that you hold multiple dense contexts in your head until they are later resolved in the text.
My opinion, taken from Greg Bear, is that if we could talk and show flashes of images at the same time – say on our phones, or floating above our heads – then the combination of words (precision) and examples (Images) would create nearly perfect communication.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-05 08:45:00 UTC
ON “THOUGHT”
by Propertarian Frank
Thought is a tricky name to use because it’s too entangled with Platonic assumptions. Tentatively I operationalize it as ordered stimulation (activation of those neural circuitries that normally get stimulated by specific external stimulants, or that are on the activation path of externally observable behavior (thinking a clause is the activation of the circuitry that is antecedent on the path to (1) vocalizing of (2) visualizing associations of, (3) associational perception of , or (4) a combination of other preset modes of action involving the clause in question)). I don’t know if this is correspondent with our current understanding of cognitive science, but I’m confident the end result will look like a variant of this.
So some of the things (I think) you would call ‘thought’, I classify as action. For instance mentally calculating 567*93 is an action. By vocalizing the correct result, you demonstrate that you can compute it (carry out the operations constituting the action). The idealization of language is due to an artificial separation of mental transformations from demonstrated action. The latter is just a special case of the former.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 19:01:00 UTC
POSITIVE RECIPROCITY IS JUST AS IMPOSSIBLE AS POSITIVE FREEDOM.
Reciprocity: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, limited to productive externalities.
What can you think of that you worry about that will survive that test of reciprocity? You see, you can’t force someone into reciprocity by means of ‘gift’ so to speak. They have to willingly accept it. There are things we might create insurance for as an act of reciprocal insurance against risks.
So, whenever you have doubts, try to imagine cases (operations) rather than general intuitions (ideals).
Warfare (reciprocal insurance of territorial monopoly and all capital within it) is the means by which we create reciprocity in the first place. So no, there is no escape from fighting.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-04 10:21:00 UTC
INTERTEMPORAL DIVISION OF ABILITY AND BIAS (NOT LABOR)
We should try to kill off the term ‘division of labor’. Principally because it implies the labor theory of value and relative equality of individuals in laboring.
The problem is, labor – meaning transformation of physical state – is of little value (and we are of little difference to one another), where as the organizing people into networks of production, distribution, trade, using incentives, where those incentives require the application of credit, money, and reward, is extremely difficult – and we differ in our ability to form networks of trust to do that, dramatically.
So I use the series: the intertemporal division of perception, ability, bias, cognition, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy. Which is quite wordy. But the short version might be reducible to “the intertemporal division of bias and ability”.
This is one of those memory devices that might take me six months or six hours. I have no idea.
But the intertemporal division of ability and bias, draws our attention to our marginal differences, where the division of labor draws attention to our marginal indifferences.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-03 10:12:00 UTC
DEFINE: “GOD”
Politically:
An Archetypal anthropomorphic literary figure that provides wisdom, example, law, or commands that assist humans in coordinating their perceptions, feelings, thoughts, knowledge, and actions, by providing a means of decidability between differences in the preferable and not, the good and not, the beautiful and not, and the true and not.
Individually:
A set of measures conflated through attribution to an anthropomorphic character that provides humans with a means of choosing actions by way of intuition, or by emulation, or by rule of thumb (thinking fast) when we are confronted with uncertainty, ambiguity, or complexity in situations where investigation, or reasoning, or discourse, or measurement (thinking slowly) is too inefficient or too costly given our scarcity of resources, time, and physical, intellectual, or emotional energy.
Specifically:
In other words, a god is a standard of weight and measure for human decision making, in the most intuitive form possible for humans: sympathetic experience (empathy).
Sociology:
Gods allowed peoples from different tribes and tribal groups to resolve differences by attributing goods and bads to the opinions of the gods in the same way we make contract provisions today. As such, new gods were invented, and new gods adapted as the people needed them.
Gods take advantage of the normal hierarchy of decision making in families, generations, tribes and polities by providing a means of ‘deciding of last resort’:
A Self > Brother > Mother > Father > Headman > Chieftain > Priest > Gods.
However, most importantly, the portfolio of gods always reflects our group evolutionary strategy in literary terms. And that portfolio does so no by direct statements that would leave that subject open to debate, but by suggestion and secondary consequence thereby hiding it from us, and hiding our debate. the reason being that we do not want people to defect to different group evolutionary strategies, that while they might be better for certain individuals would cause harm to the collective polity. In other words, literary characters are difficult to corrupt and even more difficult to argue against if they are part of a network of characters that all operate by the same group evolutionary strategy.
Psychology:
In addition to their impersonal and political literary roles, Gods can be prayed or spoken to and obeyed or sacrificed to by means of role play. So just as we imagine speaking to the hierarchy of Brother > Mother > Father > Headman, we can imagine contemplating, speaking to, begging from (praying), and trading with (sacrificing to) gods. And because we are so naturally talented at imagining these conversations, if we practice enough and have enough experience with accessing these characters, we can in fact intuit insights just as we can when role playing with others.
Ethical and Moral Synchronicity:
Because we humans are all subject to similar stimulation at similar points in time, and often resort to similar role playing as means of assisting us in decidability, we make hundreds of micro decisions every day, and maybe thousands of micro-judgments or considerations a day using the same ‘tools’ of decidability provided by our literary anthropomorphic characters. In fact, there is fairly good evidence that there is no better way to improve your decidability than expanding the scope of your literary experiences such that you can draw from so many different combinations of those tools.
Political Consequences:
We make uncountable decisions every day. Most of these decisions are unclear. And the vast majority require no difference in cost from us. So we need a means of tie-breaking. In the absence of these normative narratives and normative rules, and normative habits, we can only decide them by the knowledge at our disposal and the interests at our disposal. But by relying on narratives, rules and habits we can, at no cost to ourselves, or at very little cost to ourselves, make very tiny contributions (sacrifices) at all times toward our group evolutionary strategy (gods).
For these reasons alone, gods have profound value to a people. The constitute a literary version of the law by which the people operate. Now it is very likely that just as we have separate courts for political, institutional, civil, family, and criminal law, and just as we have myths, literature, history, economics, law, and science, that we should (and do) have a hierarchy of heroes, demigods, and gods to make it possible for humans of various abilities to advance the group evolutionary strategy in concert with others, despite our wide variation in analytic ability.
And adherence to the wisdom in that literature is as important as adherence to the norms, to the laws, and to the natural law, and to those laws of nature. Because we may come to harm if we do not, and we will likely – although not certainly – prosper as individuals and groups if we do.
Good Gods and Evil Gods:
Just as there are good ideas that assist people in escaping superstition, ignorance, poverty, labor, disease and tyranny, there are bad ideas that doom them to superstition, ignorance, poverty, labor, disease, and tyranny.
And just as there are good gods that transcend people from animal to human to demigod, by eliminating superstition, ignorance, poverty, labor,disease and tyranny, and there are bad gods that prevent people from transcending from beast, to human to demigod to gods by eliminating superstition, ignorance, poverty, labor,disease and tyranny.
The only judge of a god or gods is the relative superstition, ignorance, poverty, labor,disease and tyranny of a people.
The gods possess agency from all but the limits of the universe. A good god seeks to create agency. An evil god seeks to prevent human agency. Good gods and evil gods are easy to identify for these reasons.
Evolution of Gods:
Gods must adapt as our group evolutionary strategy adapts. And it often takes great thinkers to adapt our gods to what we have learned about the laws of nature, the natural law, and our local circumstance, and how we might persist. And in history adapting such laws takes decades, if not a century or more.
As our knowledge and awareness increases, and we are able to cope with ever larger causal connections, “Gods” give way to deconflated direct strategies becoming less and less relevant. And therefore the more power a man has over his life, the less powerful his Gods become.
Unfortunately, there are many false gods, many false group evolutionary strategies, and many foolish, idealistic, and evil people in this world who attempt to modify them for ill.
How do we know the difference? Well. Truth tells us. Because science is the discipline of truth if it is complete. Unfortunately, no science as it is practiced today is practiced ‘complete’.
Thankfully, with Testimonialism, that is something we can repair.
THE RANGE OF DEITIES
Humans demonstrate a range of gods, from those of though to those of feeling. The list below contains the range of gods from those of THOUGHT to those of FEELING.
THOUGHT
8 – Analogy to Anthropomorphic intent (physical/natural order)
7 – Ideal Anthropomorphic design or intent – platonist/ideal
6 – Supernatural (anthropomorphic intent unbound)
5 – Supernormal (anthropomorphic bound, perfect)
4 – Supranormal (anthropomorphic, bound, flawed)
3 – Demigod (mortal or immortal half-god, half-man)
2 – Deified (risen to demigod after death)
1 – Hero (demonstrated excellence against opposing forces)
0 – Man (raw potential)
1 – Saint (demonstrated sacrifice to submission or caretaking)
2 – Woman (borderline supranormal) (women are semi-magical)
3 – Animistic supranormal (animistic, natural)
4 – Animistic host (carries spirit without consciousness)
5 – Beasts of the wild
FEELING
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 12:40:00 UTC
HOW DOES YOUR DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW DIFFER FROM LOCKE AND OTHER ENLIGHTENMENT THINKERS?
(read me)
—“I have forgotten that your conception, and therefore meaning, of natural law differs extensively from that of Locke and earlier Enlightenment era philosophers.”— Radovan Vyalovich (Радован Вулович )
Great Question. Short answer: Adding Marginalism.
Explanation: It’s not that different from locke other than it’s much more technical, and that locke was part of the era of the labor theory of value and very primitive economics, and very primitive forms of property.
All I have really done is corrected it by adding marginalism/subjective value, and the full scope of demonstrated property, and that required restating it as reciprocity for it to be existentially possible.
Think of it this way: just as the difference between geometry and calculus adds relative positioning to fixed positioning, marginalism adds relative change in property exchanges, to absolute change in individual property.
In other words, under labor theory of value we don’t know if you wasted the world’s resources. Because it isn’t until you conduct a voluntary trade that we have demonstrated evidence and some ability to measure whether you added capital to the world or subtracted from it.
So I guess you could say I’m applying marginalism to natural law.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 11:25:00 UTC
Once you provide a means of decidability regardless of preference or good, the problem is then falsifying it. That’s what it means to say a ‘law’: I can’t falsify this and I can testify to it.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 09:28:00 UTC
Criminal : impose direct costs through direct action.
Unethical : impose direct costs by asymmetry of information.
Immoral : impose external costs by asymmetry of information
Evil : impose costs directly or indirectly without concern for benefit.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-25 14:11:00 UTC