Theme: Education

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/55443374_10157060488167264_155250017

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/55443374_10157060488167264_1552500174922711040_o_10157060488157264.jpg FROM LAW 103 – FoundationsFROM LAW 103 – Foundations


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-20 09:15:00 UTC

  • “My five year old understand I’m going to teach him property in toto. Then skull

    —“My five year old understand http://reciprocity.Next I’m going to teach him property in toto. Then skull pyramid building.”—Noah J Revoy


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-15 00:22:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1106349825715515392

  • “My five year old understand reciprocity.Next I’m going to teach him property in

    —“My five year old understand reciprocity.Next I’m going to teach him property in toto. Then skull pyramid building.”—Noah J Revoy


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-14 20:21:00 UTC

  • APPARENTLY TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A PHILOSOPHER YOU MUST MAKE YOUR IDEA ACCESSIBLE

    APPARENTLY TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A PHILOSOPHER YOU MUST MAKE YOUR IDEA ACCESSIBLE TO 5 YEAR OLDS

    —“Curt is not a philosopher by any means. He cannot even understand his own Confusion in order to boil it down into a simple manner in which common folk can grasp it instantly. If you cannot explain your ideas to a 5 year old child without them understanding them logically – you fail to comprehend yet, you own thoughts and imaginations in order to be able to judge them with discernment and thus avoid making a fool of yourself…”—Nacherel Tav

    This is a lie right?

    Can you explain programming to a five year old?

    The formal logics?

    Arithmetic, Geometry, Calculus, analysis and algebra?

    No you can’t.

    When Propertarianism is indifferent from writing law in a formal logic in a formal syntax, just like programming, with a formal set of types,.

    I can diagram all of it in about eight slides.

    But it’s a university degree level discipline.

    What you mean is I can’t produce an IDEOLOGY.

    Do you understand Kant, or Heidegger, or Aristotle or even darwin? Well, P is slightly easier than each. Precisely because it is formal.

    So if those men are philosophers then why am I not?


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-14 20:13:00 UTC

  • We would produce a world of much better thinkers if we taught normalization afte

    We would produce a world of much better thinkers if we taught normalization after venn diagrams. And asked people to normalize various statements.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-12 21:20:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1105579307903025153

  • We would produce a world of much better thinkers if we taught normalization afte

    We would produce a world of much better thinkers if we taught normalization after venn diagrams. And asked people to normalize various statements. sets are trivial. normalizations falsify the problem of sets


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-12 17:20:00 UTC

  • Teaching people GRAMMAR so that they can DECODE speech is not the same as teachi

    Teaching people GRAMMAR so that they can DECODE speech is not the same as teaching people to speak exclusively in decoded speech.

    We have been teaching people grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy since the medieval era.

    Written speech is more rigorous than spoken. contract language more rigorous than written. P-speech more rigorous than contract. And the purpose of this speech is to construct law that is not open to ‘interpretation’ and therefore closed to ‘legislation from the bench’.

    —“In my experience one only need set about resolving oneself to use honest and clear wording to express one’s points/stance while being as factually based as possible. “—

    And so what’s the difference other than a formal method for doing so that also defends against error, and bias? And how would I hold you accountable for speaking honestly without some method for testing your speech – rather than just depend on your OPINION as to whether you speak honestly.

    What you MEAN is that you don’t want to be forced to learn how to do such a thing. And you don’t want such a thing embodied in law, because you don’t want to be accountable for your words.

    Right?


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-12 17:13:00 UTC

  • “Curt: what if something happens to you?”– a) I am pretty sure once just LAW103

    –“Curt: what if something happens to you?”–

    a) I am pretty sure once just LAW103 Foundations is done, and LAW203/6 and we have worked through the method, the definitions, and then the long list of applications of that law, we have a purely descriptive science of the psychological and social sciences. I am on the third revision of LAW103 – Foundations, and it is … well it’s where you can understand it pretty easily as a single thing in a hierarchy of applications. And that the number of component parts is just a handful that I could roll off right now with east. I will be done with 103 fairly shortly, and doing so has helped me shorten the book down to something very simple. Between the constitution (which is a chinese menu) , the Course LAW103/LAW203/6, and a book containing both, the work will be rock solid. And it is achievable. And while y’all complain about me taking so long (and I complain too) the time I take matters because it allows me to turn all of this prose into something parsimonious, clear, and accessible to most people by one means or another.

    b) The Institute owns everything I do other than my software biz which is owned by me and my investors. If anything happens to me all IP goes either to the institute, or to my investors, with a portion of any software profits for my family.

    c) In the case where something happens to me, the institute, a few people whose names I won’t mention, and the donors will have license to do what they will with the work after I’m gone.

    d) There are people here today capable of continuing the work. The problem is that I am able for various economic reasons to devote full time to the effort, and they are not. The best people have limited time to devote. My hope would be that the institute will evolve successfully into an online university for teaching this material, and a network of schools and teachers will evolve and will provide income to those people willing and able to continue the work whether contributing or simply persisting it.

    e) I need to be clear though that my age and health are not in my favor. Even this winter I’ve been questionably effective since maybe mid december because of health issues. But, if I can finish the courses, constitution, and book, and then spend the rest of my time using the same method to produce courses and books I will be productive as long as I am able, and reconstruct the western canon – a full academic program that is defended against the left forever. I have to get into a living condition where i can walk and lift every day but sleep enough every night so that I stay healthy enough to do it. And I’m not keen on abandoning care of my elders to do that.

    LAW103 – Foundations – The Method (“The Core”)

    LAW106 Foundations: Man, Law, and Argument

    LAW206 Application and Reformation

    It is possible that if I continue making similar progress that law 106 will be just another 3 credits. I can’t easily estimate the work load without completing the course. People might be able to do the work faster than I assume.

    Law 206 (application to the scope of knowledge) should be a 300 level course i think, and Law 306 a 400 level course, since it involves writing constitutions for different groups of people.

    After that we then go to comparative legal systems and tear apart constitutions and legal systems on a country by country basis. Once that is donet here will be no legal scholars in the world that can compete with Propertarian Jurists with any excuse other than ‘it’s tradition’.

    Now that I feel REALLY secure about the Foundations, I feel like the workload for students will drop, because once you get the hang of it I think a lot of this will come more naturally than I expected. I would love to get this into a two year program, and then spend more time on economics, history and war to fill out a degree.

    But again.

    I have this work and my software work to do and I’m not 30 years old any longer.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-09 12:50:00 UTC

  • TRAINING in operational prose, logic, and grammar would help all people communic

    TRAINING in operational prose, logic, and grammar would help all people communicate just like the same operational prose, logic, and grammar help the scientific community communicate – although P-law, in addition covers not just the physical sciences but the human (psychology, sociology, ethics, law, politics, group strategy, and literature)

    But just as one cannot hope to communicate in mathematics or physics or chemistry or law without training in those disciplines, one cannot hope to communicate in the Human Sciences, and in particular ‘morality’ without training in the language and method of doing so.

    Ergo, One can train people in the logic of cooperation but one cannot discourse with people unless they are so trained. the reason being that one can never divorce himself from cognitive bias, and accumulated disinformation without that training any more than one can grasp physics without training – Sciences exist because such things are beyond the limits of our personal comprehension without systems of measurement to eliminate our biases and disinformation.

    So, yes, if you learn the propertarian method you can speak in measurements. Those measurements are not all that complicated really. But it appears to take about six months to two years to learn them today. And, I assume we can cut that to less time with the courses.

    cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-09 12:24:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53609538_10157036272777264_532877788

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53609538_10157036272777264_5328777881336152064_o_10157036272772264.jpg COURSE UPDATE LAW103 – Foundations

    Almost there with these videos

    1. What is law (Disambiguation and statement of the problem) ~20m

    2. The Methodology (the whole thing. The Big Picture. All of it.) ~15m

    3. Serialization (how to) ~15m

    4. Common Series (Definitions) ~30mCOURSE UPDATE LAW103 – Foundations

    Almost there with these videos

    1. What is law (Disambiguation and statement of the problem) ~20m

    2. The Methodology (the whole thing. The Big Picture. All of it.) ~15m

    3. Serialization (how to) ~15m

    4. Common Series (Definitions) ~30m


    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-08 13:22:00 UTC