You probably don’t know how to write software, haven’t read turing, nor chomsky, because that’s what ‘language’ means.
Continuous (a stream of sounds), recursive (passing ‘state’ – you might think of this incorrectly as ‘accumulating’), disambiguation (removing error).
Just as science is falsificationary, language is falsificationary.
Sounds in a stream should result in continuous decreases in ambiguity until the point at which we establish a context, a contract for meaning, and a warranty of due diligence limiting that meaning.
Which is what a ‘grammar’ means: Rules of continuous recursive disambiguation.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/54361695_10157069766397264_1682694257300733952_o_10157069766392264.jpg by Michael AbbottMichael D. AbbottHa ha ha. Unethical pigs in heat. Ha ha.Mar 24, 2019, 12:16 PMMichael D. AbbottChrist. Why are leftists so dumb?Mar 25, 2019, 1:57 AMby Michael Abbott
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/54798309_10157069765892264_2578685990717620224_o_10157069765882264.jpg by Michael AbbottSvan HerulBut then you look at the people that cultivated all that into the left….and they are a majority of a certain race….Mar 26, 2019, 3:56 AMby Michael Abbott
—“is there any smaller sphere in which you think psychoanalysis is an appropriate method or inquiry? (ie, hopefully the one it is intended for – personal therapy rather than public argumentation).”— Gerard
I think that it is always better to use this series:
1. Means: Personality traits and reward systems. (anglo/physical)
2. Cause: Acquisitionism and Propertarianism.(masculine/objective)
3. Training: Stoicism (Acquisition of virtues by CBT)
4 Affect(Heroic): Jungian ( Archetypes as proxies for traits) (german, sympathetic)
This series begins with the most precise but least experiential and moves to the least precise but must experiential.
Personally I would prefer, that we use the above series just like the series math, physics, chemistry, biology, cooperation (sentience/economics), speech (negotiation), that we all knew the hierarchy of those from the most physical to the most experiential, and as such that we understood how each expresses a more fictional but more experiential grammar as we proceed down that list.
This series is as important as:
1. The hierarchy of Measurements (mathematics)
2. The hierarchy of States of Matter (physical science)
3. The hierarchy of Grammars (language)
4. The hierarchy of Knowledge (aristotelian categories)
Continental vs Scandinavian vs Anglo thought, (vs Latin and Orthodox thought for that matter).
—“It’s just been a challenge suggesting to [Curt] that declarative constructs are not how morality is actually processed.”–Josh Jeppson
It’s not how it’s processed. I agree. Its however how it is CALCULATED.
(a) this is forever going to be a debate between occult semitic supernatural, the continental(german) phenomenalistic and the scientific (scandinavian) anglo, and as far as I know tells us nothing other than the amount of time under semitic (church) influence (rule) and the demand for obedience between island (scandinavian/athenian naval security), and territorial (germanic/spartan army vulnerability), or the imperial (Roman Anglo/Germanic-American power confidence)
(b) So the *demand* for Scientific Rules of Dispute resolution (American), Conformity of Values(Scandinavian), and Conformity of Thought value and deed (German), is determined by the environment for certain. By habituation (tradition) over time out of consequence. By genetics over longer time by rates of reproduction and eugenic suppression.
(c) And while we EVOLVE a system to satisfy that demand (cheap law of engineering, more expensive law of norms, and very expensive law of thought word and deed), the system of rules one implements need not be limited to the means under which it evolved, any more than reason, measurement (math) and science (testimony) need be limited to those who evolved it.
(d) My understanding is that one writes law (science) by calculation, one teaches norms (public experience) by imitation of rules, and one indoctrinates into thoughts (education) by parable. ie: Specific Formulae, General Rules, Loose Parables.
(e) we develop ‘values’ in response to internal trust and external security. These are adaptations. A russian, a Pole, an Italian, a Frenchman, a German, a Dane, an Anglo, an Australian, and an American develop values suited to our condition. However, we assumed these are CHOSEN, and we assume their method of communication must be non-rational. Neither is true.
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/55837863_10157069668602264_8361748481416626176_o_10157069668597264.jpg Quote by Michael Abbott
CurtD: Correct. Although, we can say, conversely, that both freudian theory, and feminine strategy, are genetic expressions of the same interests, and that neither freud nor woman chooses their strategy, but is an animal barely conscious, and simply following baser instinct.Gearóid Walshis there any smaller sphere in which you think psychoanalysis is an appropriate method or inquiry? (ie, hopefully the one it is intended for – personal therapy rather than public argumentation).Mar 24, 2019, 11:29 AMCurt DoolittleI think that it is always better to use this series:
1. Means: Personality traits and rewards. (anglo/physical)
2. Cause: Acquisitionism and Propertarianism.(masculine/objective)
3. Affect(Heroic): Jungian ( Archetypes as proxies for traits) (german, sympathetic)
Personally I would prefer, that we use the above series just like the series math, physics, chemistry, biology, cooperation (sentience/economics), speech (negotiation), that we all knew the hierarchy of those from the most physical to the most experiential, and as such that we understood how each expresses a more fictional but more experiential grammar as we proceed down that list.Mar 24, 2019, 11:46 AMGearóid Walshthe best psychoanalytic writing I have seen has been when it’s synthesized with bodywork. then, it’s not storytelling (with some possible emotional dimension) any more. it’s linked to a material and external standard – something I would still consider highly experimental, but at least with some empirical markers.Mar 24, 2019, 11:49 AMMichael D. AbbottI believe that Freud was right about the following: The super-ego comes from man (the father) and when man is removed, the demonic id possesses women, making them hysterical, while men become infantilized and neurotic.Mar 24, 2019, 12:20 PMMichael D. AbbottFreud is currently unpopular, but he was right about some things. In particular, masculine stoicism in society (from fathers) actually locks down the ego’s potential for hysteria, by curtailing its egoism under a kind of masculine oppression of emotion.
Contrary to leftist ideology, some oppression is in fact righteous.Mar 24, 2019, 12:22 PMGearóid Walshthe superego also somewhat corresponds to the internalized social contract on the collective level.
it’s very important to look into that – to see if it’s too harsh and debilitating or whether its views withstand testing.Mar 24, 2019, 12:24 PMQuote by Michael Abbott
CurtD: Correct. Although, we can say, conversely, that both freudian theory, and feminine strategy, are genetic expressions of the same interests, and that neither freud nor woman chooses their strategy, but is an animal barely conscious, and simply following baser instinct.
language consists of a stream of continuous recursive disambiguation consisting of what we would call stories of changes in state, culminating in a series
1.comprehension,
2.agreement/disagreement,
3.warranty of due diligence. (limiting)
When you say ‘declarative’ i use the term more common in the philosophy of science ‘promissory’, and when duly diligent ‘testimonial’.
So your term ‘declarative’ means opinion, the mainstream considers it promissory, and I consider it testimonial.
The difference between these three claims is demand. Language satisfies DEMAND for INFALLIBILITY in the given circumstance.
THe market for due diligence increases as externalities to the speech increase.
This is demonstrated everywhere in all walks of life.
