Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • Actually no: Nouns formed from prepositional verbs. But thank you for your attem

    Actually no: Nouns formed from prepositional verbs. But thank you for your attempted service to the common good.

    Truth-before-face (testimony): truth regardless of cost to the status hierarchy

    Face-before-truth (appeasement): falsehood in defense of the status hierarchy

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-02 11:39:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267782769192697857

    Reply addressees: @DexterBall1968 @Indabank @DanishPastry11 @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267779190696230917

  • Actually no: Nouns formed from prepositional verbs. But thank you for your attem

    Actually no: Nouns formed from prepositional verbs. But thank you for your attempted service to the common good.

    Truth-before-face (testimony): truth regardless of cost to the status hierarchy

    Face-before-truth (appeasement): falsehood in defense of the status hierarchy

    Reply addressees: @DexterBall1968 @Indabank @DanishPastry11 @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump

  • Please call a helpline. There are services for the mentally ill. Even dumb ones

    Please call a helpline. There are services for the mentally ill. Even dumb ones who can’t manage the American English grammar. 😉

    Oh and remember to wash behind your ears, and brush your teeth before bed.
    (And maybe check for bedbugs first.)

    Reply addressees: @Dontcar25448459 @TheRealFMCH @jpegjoshua @PhillyPolice

  • Please call a helpline. There are services for the mentally ill. Even dumb ones

    Please call a helpline. There are services for the mentally ill. Even dumb ones who can’t manage the American English grammar. 😉

    Oh and remember to wash behind your ears, and brush your teeth before bed.
    (And maybe check for bedbugs first.)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-02 01:36:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267631165843914752

    Reply addressees: @Dontcar25448459 @TheRealFMCH @jpegjoshua @PhillyPolice

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267629552311898112

  • Reciprocity, Testimony, Dimensions

    Again. Dimensions.

    1. Logic = Constant relations of sense perceptions.

    2. Identity =(NAMES)

    – Internally consistent, not inconsistent, sets of properties – Constant Relations between collections of properties.

    1. Sets = (LANGUAGE)
    2. Science = (OBSERVATIONS)
    3. Operational = (ACTIONS)

    – Internally consistent (constant, consistent relations), Relations, , .) – Constant relations between collections of references – Empirical, externally correspondent, correlative – Constant Relations between collections of references and reality – Operationally consistent or operationally possible Causation – Constant Relations between collections of references, actions, and reality in time.

    1. Rational (reasonable) = (RATIONAL INCENTIVE)
      (choice)

    2. Reciprocity = (RECIPROCAL INCENTIVES)
      (cooperation)

    This is the full set of dimensions of causality that humans can perceive and compare in order to decide. Each depends upon the one before it.

  • Reciprocity, Testimony, Dimensions

    Again. Dimensions.

    1. Logic = Constant relations of sense perceptions.

    2. Identity =(NAMES)

    – Internally consistent, not inconsistent, sets of properties – Constant Relations between collections of properties.

    1. Sets = (LANGUAGE)
    2. Science = (OBSERVATIONS)
    3. Operational = (ACTIONS)

    – Internally consistent (constant, consistent relations), Relations, , .) – Constant relations between collections of references – Empirical, externally correspondent, correlative – Constant Relations between collections of references and reality – Operationally consistent or operationally possible Causation – Constant Relations between collections of references, actions, and reality in time.

    1. Rational (reasonable) = (RATIONAL INCENTIVE)
      (choice)

    2. Reciprocity = (RECIPROCAL INCENTIVES)
      (cooperation)

    This is the full set of dimensions of causality that humans can perceive and compare in order to decide. Each depends upon the one before it.

  • Pilpul and Derivatives Are Framed As, but Not Contingent or Causal

    Pilpul and Derivatives Are Framed As, but Not Contingent or Causal. https://t.co/2bi6LWqwt6

  • Pilpul and Derivatives Are Framed As, but Not Contingent or Causal

    Pilpul and Derivatives Are Framed As, but Not Contingent or Causal. https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/pilpul-and-derivatives-are-framed-as-but-not-contingent-or-causal/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 23:32:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267599818894999554

  • Pilpul and Derivatives Are Framed As, but Not Contingent or Causal.

    PILPUL AND DERIVATIVES ARE FRAMED AS, BUT NOT CONTINGENT OR CAUSAL.

    —“A thought on grammars of ambiguation – pilpul and derivative ideologies base on primacy of linguistics would be grammars that are neither contingent nor causal, but are framed to be so?”—Bill Joslin

    Smart. Correct. — REGARDING —

    —“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.”—Curt Doolittle

  • Pilpul and Derivatives Are Framed As, but Not Contingent or Causal.

    PILPUL AND DERIVATIVES ARE FRAMED AS, BUT NOT CONTINGENT OR CAUSAL.

    —“A thought on grammars of ambiguation – pilpul and derivative ideologies base on primacy of linguistics would be grammars that are neither contingent nor causal, but are framed to be so?”—Bill Joslin

    Smart. Correct. — REGARDING —

    —“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.”—Curt Doolittle