So it’s correct to call apriorism an ideal grammar, but not a formal grammar.
Thankfully I finally know how to talk about the grammars of each incremental dimension… sigh.
Mathematical grammars are not contingent because of constant relations. That’s their beauty. The problem is they’re non causal.
Linguistic (Philosophical) grammars are contingent. That’s their weakness.
Operational grammars are not contingent. And they’re causal. That’s their beauty.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-23 10:03:00 UTC
Grammar
A grammar defining formal language L is a quadruple (N,T,R,S), where N is a finite set of nonterminals, T is a finite set of terminal symbols, R is a finite set of productions, and S is an element of N.
The set T of terminal symbols is L’s alphabet. Nonterminals are symbols representing language constructs. The sets N and T should not intersect. S is called the start symbol. Productions are rules of the form: alpha->beta, where both alpha and beta are strings of terminals and nonterminals, alpha contains at least one nonterminal.
Sentential forms for grammar G=(N,T,R,S) are defined by the following rules: S is a sentential form and if alphabetagamma is a sentential form and production beta->delta belongs to R, then alphadeltagamma is a sentential form as well.
L is the set of all strings which are sentential forms consisting entirely of terminal symbols. For a language defined by a grammar, recognition whether a given string (expression) belongs to that language is, in general, a non-trivial task. All languages defined by grammars are recursively enumerable sets.
1. A grammar G is called right linear if all its productions have the form A->alphaB or A->alpha, where A,B in N and alpha is a string of terminal symbols.
2. A grammar G is called context-free if all its productions have the form A->alpha, where A in N and alpha is a string of terminal and nonterminal symbols.
3. A grammar G is called context-sensitive if all its productions have the form alpha->beta, where both alpha and beta are strings of terminal and nonterminal symbols and the length of alpha is not more than the length of beta.
4. A grammar G is called unrestricted if it does not belong to categories 1 through 3.
This hierarchy of grammars was introduced by N. Chomsky. The set of languages defined by grammars of every category is a proper superset of that for the previous category. The languages defined by grammars of categories 1 through 3 are recursive sets. A language can be defined by a grammar of category 1 iff it is defined by a regular expression.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-23 10:00:00 UTC
(I have to stay healthy. But it’s terribly hard. Lost most of this week again. Finally back on my game today. I empathize with Hayek. It’s brutal.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-23 09:54:00 UTC
Nationalism: If you cannot hold a territory (country) and form a state( monopoly) then the market for territorial monopoly has spoken: you are a failed people.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-23 09:52:00 UTC
A Country, meaning a State, either serves nation tribe clan and family, or it destroys nation, tribe, clan and family. it’s not that a state is a bad thing. It’s that commercial revenue interests evolve to trump the interests of nation, tribe, clan and family.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-23 09:49:00 UTC
A German Suffers.
An Anglo Saxon Challenges.
An Aryan Revels.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-23 09:12:00 UTC
“Out of life’s school of war, that which does not kill us, only serves to make us stronger.”
The Cult of Anti-Fragility
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-23 09:11:00 UTC
As far as I know,
Universities filter but don’t educate.
Fraternities like universities filter further on sociability.
Sports like Fraternities select you further on teamwork.
Charities like fraternities select you further on service.
Universities are meaningful for selecting you.
Fraternities are meaningful for selecting you.
Sports are meaningful for selecting you.
IQ, Industriousness,
manners(class), sociability, loyalty,
attractiveness are meaningful.
Degrees, grades, are not.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-23 08:05:00 UTC
POWER AND VOICE
Laconic speech is a luxury of power. The spartans could speak as such because they mastered and made universal, martial epistemology. Most speech is either political or deceptive. The spartans needed neither. Seek power for the freedom to speak laconically.
Laconic speech requires deep knowledge of the subject, extraordinary honesty, extraordinary insight, and an audience of nearly equal ability, whose experience and sentiments mirror the speaker’s. It’s wisdom is lost on the idiots. Seek the wise, so you have others to speak to.
I think the modern version of laconic speech is the aphorism – which nietzsche mastered (and I try to). It allows us to speak of that which others may not yet comprehend, where the laconic merely cuts through dishonesty and posturing.
It is *extremely difficult* to speak in laconic voice or aphoristic prose and it is probably, other than poetic rhyme, and poetic song, our greatest intellectual art.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-23 07:59:00 UTC
—“What do believe is the qualitative difference between human and animal language?”—Bob Robertson
As far as I know animals do not possess language, it only exists within humans. All other creatures merely manage to communicate.
Charles Hockett (1967) introduced a generally accepted check list for language, a set of features that all human languages possess. His seven key properties are:
1 – productivity (the ability to create and understand new utterances): system which makes it possible to construct an unlimited number of sentences from a limited set of rules.
2 – arbitrariness (when signs/words do not resemble the things they represent),
3 – displacement (the ability to refer to the past and to things not present), and
4 – duality of pattern (the combination of a phonological system and a grammatical system),
5 – interchangeability (the ability to transmit and to receive messages by exchanging roles),
6 – specialization (when the only function of speech is communication and the speaker does not act out his message),
7 – cultural transmission (the ability to teach/learn from other individuals, e.g. by imitation).
As far as I know the reason humans can speak is simply brain size and complexity (long chains). But I won’t go into all of it here. But the ability to imagine futures, imagine stories, ‘self-observe’ and describe those stories in a series of symbols, using a series of rules’ takes a great deal of processing power.
While we can see elements of these patterns in parrots, corvids, dolphins, and the apes, we must teach them, and they say very simple things – because they only think very simple things.
Assuming we selected and trained enough chimpanzees to use sign language to build a self sustaining community of them, and assuming we could leave them on an island for a few centuries, it’s possible that sign language would persist. I suspect the problem is that it’s hard to produce a community of chimps with the intelligence necessary for perpetuation.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-23 06:58:00 UTC