Dimensions of reality on Y axis from upper right to bottom. Minimum to Ordinary Language grammars on X upper right to left. Truth criteria along the bottom. Right most column ordinary language.
So I have a lot of revision to do with this but in general, the idea is that in every deflationary ‘grammar’ we find the same sequence of constructs, and those constructs correspond to dimensions of reality.
Form: Sketch
-
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/23270166_10155863047107264_34948911
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/23270166_10155863047107264_3494891149688064566_o_10155863047107264.jpg Dimensions of reality on Y axis from upper right to bottom. Minimum to Ordinary Language grammars on X upper right to left. Truth criteria along the bottom. Right most column ordinary language.
So I have a lot of revision to do with this but in general, the idea is that in every deflationary ‘grammar’ we find the same sequence of constructs, and those constructs correspond to dimensions of reality.James BrittinghamKnow you’re busy, but if you could post link to pdf or other downloadable version, would be great. Can’t read this.Nov 07, 2017 11:35amCurt DoolittleIt’s plenty large enough on desktop (it’s hi rez) but if you look at it on a mobile it will be cut down.Nov 07, 2017 11:37amBill JoslinThe thought I had when looking at this earlier was breakthroughs in human cognition followed a pattern.
Persception -> deconflation -> finding a unit of measure -> finding commensurability. Breakthroughs occur when commensurability between disperate domains are discovered, which then gives rise to better measures. Discovering the common relation reveals commensurable measure. Operational epistemology focusses on relations as primary and identity/domains as secondary (or contingent).Nov 07, 2017 11:43amCurt DoolittleExactly. although I think we find commensurability and then measure but it could be two sides of the same coin.Nov 07, 2017 11:45amJames BrittinghamOkay thanks.Nov 07, 2017 11:45amBill JoslinInhibitions to human cognition follow the inverse pattern.
Persception -> conflation -> generalization-> faked commensurabilityNov 07, 2017 11:46amBill JoslinI agree. Particular measures with in a domain which afford recognition of the common relation which reveals commensurability, which is a new or refined measure.Nov 07, 2017 11:48amBill JoslinBridgman was right – defining concepts by operations aligns better with reality, but I would take this further and say that identity names or labels a set of constant relations with in boundaries. Substantive or object based identity names by boundary and misses the constant relations. By missing the constant relations the interaction of identities becomes obscured (operations at higher orders is obscured)Nov 07, 2017 11:52amBill JoslinThis is huge and very importantNov 07, 2017 11:52amBill JoslinIdentity = bound constant relationsNov 07, 2017 11:54amCurt Doolittleoooohhh,… nice.Nov 07, 2017 12:48pmWilliam L. BengeThus allowing all items on one’s horizon to be authentically identified and identifiable, from which the actor is enabled to decipher the real relationships between each; understanding. And, from that newly obtained vantage, proceed to decipher one’s best preferred volitional action, or really interaction. A methodology or science for development of efficacy; personal or group wisdom? I do think so.Nov 07, 2017 12:49pmBryan Nova BreyOver here too @[1255416290:2048:Blake Southwood]. I think you should friend request Curt.Nov 08, 2017 2:05amDimensions of reality on Y axis from upper right to bottom. Minimum to Ordinary Language grammars on X upper right to left. Truth criteria along the bottom. Right most column ordinary language.
So I have a lot of revision to do with this but in general, the idea is that in every deflationary ‘grammar’ we find the same sequence of constructs, and those constructs correspond to dimensions of reality.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-07 11:27:00 UTC
-
Dimensions of reality on Y axis from upper right to bottom. Minimum to Ordinary
Dimensions of reality on Y axis from upper right to bottom. Minimum to Ordinary Language grammars on X upper right to left. Truth criteria along the bottom. Right most column ordinary language. So I have a lot of revision to do with this but in general, the idea is that in every deflationary ‘grammar’ we find the same sequence of constructs, and those constructs correspond to dimensions of reality. -
“Is cooperation with the natural dominance (competence) hierarchy more rewarding
—“Is cooperation with the natural dominance (competence) hierarchy more rewarding than predation or boycott?”— Oliver Wescott ||Unaware-no_oppy > Aware-oppy(Boycott, Cooperation, Predation) The profitability of any set of interactions is contingent upon the time value of boycott, cooperation, or predation, in some combination. In general, boycott preserves opportunity for future cooperation, cooperation increases the opportunity for future cooperation, and predation decreases the opportunity for future cooperation. In general, the value of predation increases with the advantage of some form of power, the chance of success, and the sustainability of a pool of available prey. The value of predation decreases with the chance of failure or retaliation, and the unsustainability of a pool of available prey. As an economic system, the domestication of the animal man (aryanism) which applied the domestication of animals to humans through the developmental sequence slave > serf > freeman > citizen > sovereign, was the most successful in history. -
“Is cooperation with the natural dominance (competence) hierarchy more rewarding
—“Is cooperation with the natural dominance (competence) hierarchy more rewarding than predation or boycott?”— Oliver Wescott ||Unaware-no_oppy > Aware-oppy(Boycott, Cooperation, Predation) The profitability of any set of interactions is contingent upon the time value of boycott, cooperation, or predation, in some combination. In general, boycott preserves opportunity for future cooperation, cooperation increases the opportunity for future cooperation, and predation decreases the opportunity for future cooperation. In general, the value of predation increases with the advantage of some form of power, the chance of success, and the sustainability of a pool of available prey. The value of predation decreases with the chance of failure or retaliation, and the unsustainability of a pool of available prey. As an economic system, the domestication of the animal man (aryanism) which applied the domestication of animals to humans through the developmental sequence slave > serf > freeman > citizen > sovereign, was the most successful in history. -
BEHAVIOR| property(acquisition/defense) > prey drive > gender drive > cooperatio
|BEHAVIOR| property(acquisition/defense) > prey drive > gender drive > cooperation drive > personality > intuition > reason > calculation > computation > markets > symmetries.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-02 11:01:00 UTC
-
BEHAVIOR| property(acquisition/defense) > prey drive > gender drive > cooperatio
|BEHAVIOR| property(acquisition/defense) > prey drive > gender drive > cooperation drive > personality > intuition > reason > calculation > computation > markets > symmetries. -
BEHAVIOR| property(acquisition/defense) > prey drive > gender drive > cooperatio
|BEHAVIOR| property(acquisition/defense) > prey drive > gender drive > cooperation drive > personality > intuition > reason > calculation > computation > markets > symmetries. -
The Route to Operational Grammar
I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many)
-
The Route to Operational Grammar
I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided. SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law) Zoroaster -> Abraham -> …|-> Rabbinicals-> … … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium) … … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund. IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law) Plato -> Kant -> … … … … |->Marx(Soc.) … … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe … … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon) … … … … |->Frege->Kripke … … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law) Aristotle->Bacon/Newton … |->Locke/Smith/Hume … … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek |->Poincare ->Hilbert |->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing … … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky |->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick -> |->Maxwell -> (Many)