Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Minor Update to The Grammars

    MINOR UPDATE TO THE GRAMMARS Fussing with this problem a long time but have improved the categories of the Fictionalisms by converting to spectrums. … Deceits … … … Fictionalism … … … …. Pseudoscience -> Magic … … … …. Idealism-> Surrealism, and … … … …. Supernaturalism->Occult === LIST (W/O DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS) === THE SPECTRUM: 1. Sense(stimuli) … … Perception (composition) … … … Association 2. Logic Facility (constant relations) … … Imagination Facility (prediction) … … … Reason Facility (comparison, permutation) 3. Grammar facility (statements) … … Paradigms (‘metaphysics’, ‘dimensions’) … … Vocabulary … … … Sounds … … … Signs (acts, actions) … … … Marks (records) … … … … accidental … … … … intentional … … … … … Mark … … … … … Symbol … … … … … … Glyph … … … … … Pictogram … … … … … Picture … … … … … Picture Series … … … … … Animation 4. Communication Facility (“Language”) … Truths … … Logics (deflationary Grammars) … … Rhetoric (argumentative, persuasive Grammars) … Descriptions … … Testimony … Ordinary Language … Narrations (inflationary Grammars) … … Narrative (description) … … … Storytelling (loading, framing) … Deceits … … … Fictionalism … … … …. Pseudoscience -> Magic… … … …. Idealism-> Surrealism, and… … … …. Supernaturalism->Occult … … … Obscurantism (Obscuring, Overloading) … … … … Propaganda … … … Misdirection (Deceit) … … … Fraud (for gain) … … … Harm (Evil, for harm regardless of gain)

  • Minor Update to The Grammars

    MINOR UPDATE TO THE GRAMMARS Fussing with this problem a long time but have improved the categories of the Fictionalisms by converting to spectrums. … Deceits … … … Fictionalism … … … …. Pseudoscience -> Magic … … … …. Idealism-> Surrealism, and … … … …. Supernaturalism->Occult === LIST (W/O DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS) === THE SPECTRUM: 1. Sense(stimuli) … … Perception (composition) … … … Association 2. Logic Facility (constant relations) … … Imagination Facility (prediction) … … … Reason Facility (comparison, permutation) 3. Grammar facility (statements) … … Paradigms (‘metaphysics’, ‘dimensions’) … … Vocabulary … … … Sounds … … … Signs (acts, actions) … … … Marks (records) … … … … accidental … … … … intentional … … … … … Mark … … … … … Symbol … … … … … … Glyph … … … … … Pictogram … … … … … Picture … … … … … Picture Series … … … … … Animation 4. Communication Facility (“Language”) … Truths … … Logics (deflationary Grammars) … … Rhetoric (argumentative, persuasive Grammars) … Descriptions … … Testimony … Ordinary Language … Narrations (inflationary Grammars) … … Narrative (description) … … … Storytelling (loading, framing) … Deceits … … … Fictionalism … … … …. Pseudoscience -> Magic… … … …. Idealism-> Surrealism, and… … … …. Supernaturalism->Occult … … … Obscurantism (Obscuring, Overloading) … … … … Propaganda … … … Misdirection (Deceit) … … … Fraud (for gain) … … … Harm (Evil, for harm regardless of gain)

  • Property as A Human Behavior

    PROPERTY AS A HUMAN BEHAVIOR by Bill Joslin A demonstrated definition of property doesn’t result in a less precise criteria for deciding property. The demonstrated definition: i.e. the investment to seek a future benefit to the extent one would seek restitution or retaliation if said investment has been imposed upon, damaged or destroyed. This definition has two sides to it – the investment (which is demonstrated) and the willingness protect the investment. Another way to describe property is the term “demonstrated interests”. By this we have a clear means of calculating (not interpreting) property and a measure for imposiition. People would not be able to claim their feelings as a property because there is no demonstrated investment. The demonstrated definition of property closes the door to discretionary interpretation (abuse) and opens the door to calculation. It accomplishes the opposite of what you are concerned about. So think of it this way – the point of a demonstrated definition of property wasn’t to expand property rights beyond material possessions etc. (This isn’t a ploy.) It begins with clarifying the causes for human conflict, i.e. what inspires retaliation and why do we retaliate. By doing this it becomes clear older versions of property definitions (possession i.e. property equates to ownership, exclusive control) and mixed labour theories (material becomes property when we mix our labor with it) are partially correct but highly flawed. Simply put, property exists as a behaviour humans exhibit toward objects. And once the behaviour was discovered then it became clear that humans behave this way toward more than just objects. Our language use exemplifies this. We use the possessive for all sorts of things which we don’t consider property by traditional definitions… my wife, my daughter, my religion, my idea, my friend etc… And in all of these cases we have investment and willingness to maintain (reinvest), protect if threatened, and retaliate if damaged. So this isn’t word games, it runs deeper with thicker foundations than just “changing definitions”. (Much like “health” is an abstract, it is also something we’ve incrementally discovered, a demonstrated definition of property exists as an incremental discovery of a real abstraction.)

  • Property as A Human Behavior

    PROPERTY AS A HUMAN BEHAVIOR by Bill Joslin A demonstrated definition of property doesn’t result in a less precise criteria for deciding property. The demonstrated definition: i.e. the investment to seek a future benefit to the extent one would seek restitution or retaliation if said investment has been imposed upon, damaged or destroyed. This definition has two sides to it – the investment (which is demonstrated) and the willingness protect the investment. Another way to describe property is the term “demonstrated interests”. By this we have a clear means of calculating (not interpreting) property and a measure for imposiition. People would not be able to claim their feelings as a property because there is no demonstrated investment. The demonstrated definition of property closes the door to discretionary interpretation (abuse) and opens the door to calculation. It accomplishes the opposite of what you are concerned about. So think of it this way – the point of a demonstrated definition of property wasn’t to expand property rights beyond material possessions etc. (This isn’t a ploy.) It begins with clarifying the causes for human conflict, i.e. what inspires retaliation and why do we retaliate. By doing this it becomes clear older versions of property definitions (possession i.e. property equates to ownership, exclusive control) and mixed labour theories (material becomes property when we mix our labor with it) are partially correct but highly flawed. Simply put, property exists as a behaviour humans exhibit toward objects. And once the behaviour was discovered then it became clear that humans behave this way toward more than just objects. Our language use exemplifies this. We use the possessive for all sorts of things which we don’t consider property by traditional definitions… my wife, my daughter, my religion, my idea, my friend etc… And in all of these cases we have investment and willingness to maintain (reinvest), protect if threatened, and retaliate if damaged. So this isn’t word games, it runs deeper with thicker foundations than just “changing definitions”. (Much like “health” is an abstract, it is also something we’ve incrementally discovered, a demonstrated definition of property exists as an incremental discovery of a real abstraction.)

  • “Please Define Mindfulness?”

    —“What do you mean when you use the word “mindfulness”?”— Andrew Cordeaux @AndrewCordeaux

    1) I mean the physical, cognitive and emotional discipline to control the subject of attention on the present intent, insulated from distractions whether personal, environmental, or interpersonal. 2) But with preference for the stoic method (self authoring, virtues of action), the epicurean objective (within one’s control), testimonial (scientific) knowledge, the play (ritual), and team sport, festival, and feast (celebration). 3) The buddhist method, originally practical and insular evolved into semi-mystical, and survived the attack by monotheistic abrahamism, where the western schools that were practical and action oriented, were destroyed by design by the Abrahamic conquest and dark age. 4) East asian ritual, and Hindu ‘way of life’ survived as well. Each of these methods of physical, mental and emotional discipline reflects local demand given local degree of agency during the period of transformation. (although buddhism was imposed on japan unfortunately). 5) So I use ‘mindfulness’ in the sense that all groups sought to meet demands for some technique of achieving mindfulness of their eras by slightly different means. Since buddhism developed the most direct analysis of the objective, the terminology evolved into a universal. 6) But as in all things, the stoic method, epicurean objective, and scientific(empirical) paradigm, and pursuit of agency(dominance) rather than withdrawal (submission), reflect the european rather than african, semitic, hindu, east asian metaphysics: realism, naturalism, agency.

  • “Please Define Mindfulness?”

    —“What do you mean when you use the word “mindfulness”?”— Andrew Cordeaux @AndrewCordeaux

    1) I mean the physical, cognitive and emotional discipline to control the subject of attention on the present intent, insulated from distractions whether personal, environmental, or interpersonal. 2) But with preference for the stoic method (self authoring, virtues of action), the epicurean objective (within one’s control), testimonial (scientific) knowledge, the play (ritual), and team sport, festival, and feast (celebration). 3) The buddhist method, originally practical and insular evolved into semi-mystical, and survived the attack by monotheistic abrahamism, where the western schools that were practical and action oriented, were destroyed by design by the Abrahamic conquest and dark age. 4) East asian ritual, and Hindu ‘way of life’ survived as well. Each of these methods of physical, mental and emotional discipline reflects local demand given local degree of agency during the period of transformation. (although buddhism was imposed on japan unfortunately). 5) So I use ‘mindfulness’ in the sense that all groups sought to meet demands for some technique of achieving mindfulness of their eras by slightly different means. Since buddhism developed the most direct analysis of the objective, the terminology evolved into a universal. 6) But as in all things, the stoic method, epicurean objective, and scientific(empirical) paradigm, and pursuit of agency(dominance) rather than withdrawal (submission), reflect the european rather than african, semitic, hindu, east asian metaphysics: realism, naturalism, agency.

  • No The Universe is (exists as) not a ‘mind’

    —“How do you demonstrate that the universe is a mind?”—Sam McPhail

    [F]or the equivalent to calculation to exist requires possibilities (disequilibrium). For mind to exist requires and a means of storing state, and (a) prediction, (b) permutation (c) choice (d) action from a history of states. The function of what we call mind is to allow us to predict candidate actions such that we can outwit the determinism of the universe and capture the energy thereby resisting entropy. How the universe or anything in the universe can do something, or anything, close to ‘mind’ would require we discover the means of information storage and the means of using that information storage, and the possibilities predictive using it, and the means of selecting choices from those possibilities, and the means of acting to seize those opportunities (choices), for some purpose (caloric gain). As far as I know the universe is purely operational (limited in transactions) at every scale. And that our current ignorance because of our inability to measure (observe), has left us uncertainty as to whether the universe and its contents are the same or separate things, and whether there is one or many, and whether they are interdependent (frothing so to speak).

  • No The Universe is (exists as) not a ‘mind’

    —“How do you demonstrate that the universe is a mind?”—Sam McPhail

    [F]or the equivalent to calculation to exist requires possibilities (disequilibrium). For mind to exist requires and a means of storing state, and (a) prediction, (b) permutation (c) choice (d) action from a history of states. The function of what we call mind is to allow us to predict candidate actions such that we can outwit the determinism of the universe and capture the energy thereby resisting entropy. How the universe or anything in the universe can do something, or anything, close to ‘mind’ would require we discover the means of information storage and the means of using that information storage, and the possibilities predictive using it, and the means of selecting choices from those possibilities, and the means of acting to seize those opportunities (choices), for some purpose (caloric gain). As far as I know the universe is purely operational (limited in transactions) at every scale. And that our current ignorance because of our inability to measure (observe), has left us uncertainty as to whether the universe and its contents are the same or separate things, and whether there is one or many, and whether they are interdependent (frothing so to speak).

  • The Origins of Individualism

    —“Individualism” properly defined, as the mutual respect of humans for each other’s direct connection to God …”—

    [I] don’t know where that comes from, but as far as I now individualism in the marxist, postmodern sense is relatively recent invention, with the unique western tradition of individual sovereignty under rule of law the origin of what we group under the term individualism. We often conflate that with christian consideration (care) for the individual and christian tolerance for the individual. But we prohibited collective punishment, created law for the individual not family, and created policy for the intergenerational family. Civilizations all talk about their via-positivas but they cooperate by their via-negativas instead. The purpose of a via-positiva as far as I know is to circumvent the via-negativa, and by habituation, remove it from cognition (metaphysical presumptions).

  • The Origins of Individualism

    —“Individualism” properly defined, as the mutual respect of humans for each other’s direct connection to God …”—

    [I] don’t know where that comes from, but as far as I now individualism in the marxist, postmodern sense is relatively recent invention, with the unique western tradition of individual sovereignty under rule of law the origin of what we group under the term individualism. We often conflate that with christian consideration (care) for the individual and christian tolerance for the individual. But we prohibited collective punishment, created law for the individual not family, and created policy for the intergenerational family. Civilizations all talk about their via-positivas but they cooperate by their via-negativas instead. The purpose of a via-positiva as far as I know is to circumvent the via-negativa, and by habituation, remove it from cognition (metaphysical presumptions).