Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E')

    DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )

    COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.

  • Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E’)

    DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )

    COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.

  • ETHICAL SPEECH, PERFORMATIVE TRUTH AND SUBSETS OF PERFORMATIVE TRUTH SUITABLE FO

    ETHICAL SPEECH, PERFORMATIVE TRUTH AND SUBSETS OF PERFORMATIVE TRUTH SUITABLE FOR METHODOLOGICAL EXPLORATION

    (worth repeating)

    People in all fields selectively violate ethical constraints on speech when and where it is either helpful to them or irrelevant to their task: cost in philosophy, scale in math, cause in logic, utility in identity, cooperation and preference in the physical sciences. I cannot think of a value of communication outside of cooperation, so to speak to another is to engage in cooperation of some form.

    All these different disciplines DISCARD properties of ‘ethical, performative, truth” as needed for their methodological pursuit of exploration.

    As such there is only one complete set of properties to the concept: ethical, performative, truth. Everything else is a subset of that definition of truth.

    Preference, Utility, Cooperation, Cause, Cost, Scale, Relation, Identity

    Something of that structure.

    (This will take me five years to get right.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-26 10:13:00 UTC

  • TARSKI IS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO FORMAL LANGUAGES Formal languages are subset

    TARSKI IS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO FORMAL LANGUAGES

    Formal languages are subsets of our full language. They are platonic (imaginary and symbolic) by definition and intent. Operational language is not platonic, but extant and demonstrated in real time and space, and can be used to describe actions in time and space, and if constrained to the description of actions in time and space, are open to observation, and confirmation, and falsification. This is why science requires operational language. This is why ethics MUST require operational language. Otherwise deception, self deception and error are obscured by the fungibility of language.

    Tarski, Alfred, “The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics”, in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4 (1944).

    Tarski, Alfred. “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages”, in Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Clarendon Press, 1956.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-25 06:35:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRACY : A KINSHIP OF PROPERTY RIGHTS I think that’s the most reductive sta

    ARISTOCRACY : A KINSHIP OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

    I think that’s the most reductive statement that I can make.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 07:23:00 UTC

  • A COINCIDENCE OF INTERESTS If people all identify and seize an opportunity becau

    A COINCIDENCE OF INTERESTS

    If people all identify and seize an opportunity because of a coincidence of interests that is not a conspiracy.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-18 07:46:00 UTC

  • “Absolute Nuclear Family”, (“A.N.F.”, “ANF”)

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/07/absolute-nuclear-families.html?m=1DEFINITION: “Absolute Nuclear Family”, (“A.N.F.”, “ANF”)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-10 09:22:00 UTC

  • PROHIBITING OBSCURANT SPEECH WITH E-PRIME (E’) DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been;

    PROHIBITING OBSCURANT SPEECH WITH E-PRIME (E’)

    DISALLOWED WORDS

    be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t;

    Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be:

    I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s;

    Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following:

    ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your).

    ALLOWED WORDS

    The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs).

    become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal.

    PROPERTARIANISM

    In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-04 15:31:00 UTC

  • Rules of Ethical and Moral Exchanges

    DEFINITIONS ETHICAL: no involuntary transfer local to the exchange MORAL: no involuntary transfer external to the exchange. CASES NON/MORAL / AMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary exchange. (non-violence) UNETHICAL) Two people conduct an voluntary, asymmetrically productive exchange. (unethical) ETHICAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange.(ethical) IMMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange with externalities (immoral). MORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange without externalities (moral).

  • Rules of Ethical and Moral Exchanges

    DEFINITIONS ETHICAL: no involuntary transfer local to the exchange MORAL: no involuntary transfer external to the exchange. CASES NON/MORAL / AMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary exchange. (non-violence) UNETHICAL) Two people conduct an voluntary, asymmetrically productive exchange. (unethical) ETHICAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange.(ethical) IMMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange with externalities (immoral). MORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange without externalities (moral).