Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • Empty Criticisms to Obscure Unsatisfied Demand I Never Set out To Supply

    Oct 17, 2019, 9:28 PM

    —“I think Curt is working with an oversimplified, inaccurate theory of language, which leads to many liberal problems (Propertarianism as merely an intensification of liberalism), but I’ve always enjoyed some of his encyclopedic observations (because those are all necessarily written scientifically anyways, so there can be some compatibility).”—Imperius

    I am not working on an oversimplified and inaccurate theory of language, I am working on disambiguating language into causal axis (which I have done – as far as I know it’s complete). You are, as many right-wing-postmoderists are, correctly stating that language can via positiva be used to construct paradigms by narrative expression that are useful for various purposes in pseudoscientific, rational(continental sophomoric), literary (analogistic), mythological(heroic analogistic), supernatural prose. But that’ isn’t my objective (which you know). My objective is to write law that is decidable regardless of the USEFUL paradigms employed, by anyone whenever they are in CONFLICT. So the answer is, yes, P is so far flawless for purpose intended: decidability in matters of conflict. And since you and yours seek secular theology, the christians and muslims supernatural theology, and those like me seek scientific(Testimonial) decidability. So I’m writing a constitution serving all in the only language commensurable across all. I am not (as you wish I would) create a literary, philosophical, or theological religion dependent upon appeal to empathy(emotion) or sympathy(intuition), only reason. P provides no via positiva for any of the empathic, intuitionistic, or sympathetic market demands. It however does provide via negativa for juridical, political, and military, demands. So the best anyone can do (that I know of) is precisely what we have seen: rebel against science and reason without offering an alternative solution other than return to christian theology – which is impossible for all but those evolved to demand it. You want a continental secular theology, or perhaps occult theology, or perhaps supernatural theology that appeals to empathy and intuition. And if you want something like abrahamic religions or buddhism that is intentionally designed to circumvent criticism by science and reason, then go ahead and try to create one. But criticizing P while not producing an alternative, is simply unearned attention seeking on one hand and critique without competing alternative on the other. P is actionable. When I see some other centrist, libertarian, or conservative put out a work product that is other than pretense of knowledge and pretense of solution we can talk. Until then, there is no other new game in town.

  • Empty Criticisms to Obscure Unsatisfied Demand I Never Set out To Supply

    Oct 17, 2019, 9:28 PM

    —“I think Curt is working with an oversimplified, inaccurate theory of language, which leads to many liberal problems (Propertarianism as merely an intensification of liberalism), but I’ve always enjoyed some of his encyclopedic observations (because those are all necessarily written scientifically anyways, so there can be some compatibility).”—Imperius

    I am not working on an oversimplified and inaccurate theory of language, I am working on disambiguating language into causal axis (which I have done – as far as I know it’s complete). You are, as many right-wing-postmoderists are, correctly stating that language can via positiva be used to construct paradigms by narrative expression that are useful for various purposes in pseudoscientific, rational(continental sophomoric), literary (analogistic), mythological(heroic analogistic), supernatural prose. But that’ isn’t my objective (which you know). My objective is to write law that is decidable regardless of the USEFUL paradigms employed, by anyone whenever they are in CONFLICT. So the answer is, yes, P is so far flawless for purpose intended: decidability in matters of conflict. And since you and yours seek secular theology, the christians and muslims supernatural theology, and those like me seek scientific(Testimonial) decidability. So I’m writing a constitution serving all in the only language commensurable across all. I am not (as you wish I would) create a literary, philosophical, or theological religion dependent upon appeal to empathy(emotion) or sympathy(intuition), only reason. P provides no via positiva for any of the empathic, intuitionistic, or sympathetic market demands. It however does provide via negativa for juridical, political, and military, demands. So the best anyone can do (that I know of) is precisely what we have seen: rebel against science and reason without offering an alternative solution other than return to christian theology – which is impossible for all but those evolved to demand it. You want a continental secular theology, or perhaps occult theology, or perhaps supernatural theology that appeals to empathy and intuition. And if you want something like abrahamic religions or buddhism that is intentionally designed to circumvent criticism by science and reason, then go ahead and try to create one. But criticizing P while not producing an alternative, is simply unearned attention seeking on one hand and critique without competing alternative on the other. P is actionable. When I see some other centrist, libertarian, or conservative put out a work product that is other than pretense of knowledge and pretense of solution we can talk. Until then, there is no other new game in town.

  • What I Understand Is Terrifying. It’s Not Me that Doesn’t Understand.

    Oct 18, 2019, 7:13 PM

    –“… (Doolittle) doesn’t understand language …”– A Right Wing Postmodernist

    The truth is not amenable to man, unless the truth provides him with agency. Others confuse truth and utility. The truth may be useful but it is also true and reciprocal. Many statements are useful but either false, ir-reciprocal, or both. AFAIK: 1) All words are names (referrers). 2) All Phrases Descriptions 3) All sentences transactions 4) All statements promises (This is not intuitive). 5) All narrations, stories. 6) All language measurement – that is reducible to analogy to experience – the question is, measurement of WHAT? (This is not intuitive) 7) All meaning transferred by description within experience, and analogy to experience beyond experience. 8) All meaning transferred by consent (understanding), 9) All due diligence limits meaning. 10) All paradigms of of communication deflationary(limited), descriptive(testimony), conflationary (loaded, framed), or inflationary(fictionally expanded), or fictionalism (sophism-idealism, pseudoscience-magic, supernatural-occult) 11) All communications ostracization (departure), cooperation (reciprocal), or coercive (dishonest). 12 ) (and here is the problem:) Audiences infantile, juvenile, ignorant, knowledgeable, skilled, or mastery. 13) audience composed of dominantly empathic, dominantly normative, and dominantly empirical distributions; and all populations distributed between female herd consensus (preference), and male, pack, advantage (truth). 14) and all attempts to organize those ranges of people by incentives either true or false, productive or parasitic, useful, not useful or harmful, and reciprocal, amoral, or irreciprocal, 15) and all persuasion addressed to: i) an average of the audience, ii) an average of the audience’s influencers, iii) tailored to each audience’s influencers. I can go on in even more painful detail. This is just an overview. If you take a peek at the chart of the grammars, you’ll find innovative explanations that no other has provided. As I explained to someone else today, we may need supernatural theology, occult theology, secular theology, rational normative law, and empirical science to convince sufficient numbers of any given polity unless we follow the semitic strategy of infantilization of the cognition of the population, and the only slightly less infantilizing continental strategy – both seem to work. Just as rule of empirical law seems to work. The question is which of the suite of methods do we use to provide decidability in matters of undecidability, difference, dispute, or conflict, between these cognitively dominant paradigms (narratives). Because we very clearly can provide a host of deflationary, descriptive, conflationary, inflationary, and fictionalisms as means of communication between group members given their levels of infancy or maturity, and femininity or masculinity, ignorance or mastery. As to what I’m bringing to the history of thought – I’m bringing falsification to the abrahamic old world and abrahamic new world means of undermining our people with false promise, baiting into moral hazard, pipul and critique that we call islamism, jewish ethics, undermining our laws by design, undermining undermining the classes by marxism, undermining genders through feminism, undermining our identities, undermining truthful speech with postmodernism, and outright denial of individual gender, class, group and racial differences in order reverse our eugenic aesthetic cultural traditional civilizational institutional and technological achievements. And I now perfectly well that it is easy for you and others to criticize that which is imperfect, and to seek attention by doing so when as far as I know there is nothing on the table by anyone living that is other than an admission of failure to provide a solution to the problem other than another retreat into one of the systems of lying that you prefer because lying is a cheap means of agency over the weak. So as usual: “man up and show me something”, because ‘critique’ is just criticizing the real best vs the ideal perfect. “Ya’ll got nothing.” So to speak. Except a bunch of young-uns wanting a daddy in theological, secular theological or sophomoric prose. I have a simple message: “Here is a plan, this plan solves the problem regardless of which narrative you need given your cognitive dominances. It does not require we agree on how to go forward. It agrees on what we prohibit – the enemy. It preserves the western tradition of a competition between theological (lower classes), philosophical (middle classes), and empirical (upper classes). And prohibits a monopoly by any.” So Man up. Show up. And we win the ABILITY to pursue supernatural, philosophical-normative, and empirical means of advancing our interests in markets where we only need to agree on material trades. If that isn’t enough of an answer, every other possible answer will demonstrably fail given the existential classes and their frames, and their interests. So as far as I know your criticism isn’t really a criticism. It’s a demand to serve your PREFERENCE, because you can’t produce an equally competitive solution with equal potential for implementation. If you could, you’d compete and pay no attention to me. So your criticism is simply demonstration of the veracity of my work. We just keep growing slowly, year by year. And If we don’t succeed in creating the answer to the Frankfurt School then maybe someone else will. But so far ‘I got the only game in town’.

  • What I Understand Is Terrifying. It’s Not Me that Doesn’t Understand.

    Oct 18, 2019, 7:13 PM

    –“… (Doolittle) doesn’t understand language …”– A Right Wing Postmodernist

    The truth is not amenable to man, unless the truth provides him with agency. Others confuse truth and utility. The truth may be useful but it is also true and reciprocal. Many statements are useful but either false, ir-reciprocal, or both. AFAIK: 1) All words are names (referrers). 2) All Phrases Descriptions 3) All sentences transactions 4) All statements promises (This is not intuitive). 5) All narrations, stories. 6) All language measurement – that is reducible to analogy to experience – the question is, measurement of WHAT? (This is not intuitive) 7) All meaning transferred by description within experience, and analogy to experience beyond experience. 8) All meaning transferred by consent (understanding), 9) All due diligence limits meaning. 10) All paradigms of of communication deflationary(limited), descriptive(testimony), conflationary (loaded, framed), or inflationary(fictionally expanded), or fictionalism (sophism-idealism, pseudoscience-magic, supernatural-occult) 11) All communications ostracization (departure), cooperation (reciprocal), or coercive (dishonest). 12 ) (and here is the problem:) Audiences infantile, juvenile, ignorant, knowledgeable, skilled, or mastery. 13) audience composed of dominantly empathic, dominantly normative, and dominantly empirical distributions; and all populations distributed between female herd consensus (preference), and male, pack, advantage (truth). 14) and all attempts to organize those ranges of people by incentives either true or false, productive or parasitic, useful, not useful or harmful, and reciprocal, amoral, or irreciprocal, 15) and all persuasion addressed to: i) an average of the audience, ii) an average of the audience’s influencers, iii) tailored to each audience’s influencers. I can go on in even more painful detail. This is just an overview. If you take a peek at the chart of the grammars, you’ll find innovative explanations that no other has provided. As I explained to someone else today, we may need supernatural theology, occult theology, secular theology, rational normative law, and empirical science to convince sufficient numbers of any given polity unless we follow the semitic strategy of infantilization of the cognition of the population, and the only slightly less infantilizing continental strategy – both seem to work. Just as rule of empirical law seems to work. The question is which of the suite of methods do we use to provide decidability in matters of undecidability, difference, dispute, or conflict, between these cognitively dominant paradigms (narratives). Because we very clearly can provide a host of deflationary, descriptive, conflationary, inflationary, and fictionalisms as means of communication between group members given their levels of infancy or maturity, and femininity or masculinity, ignorance or mastery. As to what I’m bringing to the history of thought – I’m bringing falsification to the abrahamic old world and abrahamic new world means of undermining our people with false promise, baiting into moral hazard, pipul and critique that we call islamism, jewish ethics, undermining our laws by design, undermining undermining the classes by marxism, undermining genders through feminism, undermining our identities, undermining truthful speech with postmodernism, and outright denial of individual gender, class, group and racial differences in order reverse our eugenic aesthetic cultural traditional civilizational institutional and technological achievements. And I now perfectly well that it is easy for you and others to criticize that which is imperfect, and to seek attention by doing so when as far as I know there is nothing on the table by anyone living that is other than an admission of failure to provide a solution to the problem other than another retreat into one of the systems of lying that you prefer because lying is a cheap means of agency over the weak. So as usual: “man up and show me something”, because ‘critique’ is just criticizing the real best vs the ideal perfect. “Ya’ll got nothing.” So to speak. Except a bunch of young-uns wanting a daddy in theological, secular theological or sophomoric prose. I have a simple message: “Here is a plan, this plan solves the problem regardless of which narrative you need given your cognitive dominances. It does not require we agree on how to go forward. It agrees on what we prohibit – the enemy. It preserves the western tradition of a competition between theological (lower classes), philosophical (middle classes), and empirical (upper classes). And prohibits a monopoly by any.” So Man up. Show up. And we win the ABILITY to pursue supernatural, philosophical-normative, and empirical means of advancing our interests in markets where we only need to agree on material trades. If that isn’t enough of an answer, every other possible answer will demonstrably fail given the existential classes and their frames, and their interests. So as far as I know your criticism isn’t really a criticism. It’s a demand to serve your PREFERENCE, because you can’t produce an equally competitive solution with equal potential for implementation. If you could, you’d compete and pay no attention to me. So your criticism is simply demonstration of the veracity of my work. We just keep growing slowly, year by year. And If we don’t succeed in creating the answer to the Frankfurt School then maybe someone else will. But so far ‘I got the only game in town’.

  • Which of Your Cognitive Markets Are You Serving?

    Oct 25, 2019, 9:48 AM The verb to be circumvents existence, which is what you are trying to circumvent testifying for, just as Heidegger was trying to circumvent and reverse the verb and noun – because both of you are tying to make speech conform to experience rather than speech test experience – which is it’s only POSSIBLE function unless you’re trying to lie. All imagination is produced by association and introspective causes justificationary but all speech like all action is falsificationary – whether or not we wish it to be. So you can describe your predictions, imaginations and fantasies (meaning) in an effort to deceive yourself and others, or you can speak your predictions, imaginations and fantasies (meaning) and have others falsify them or not, or you can act on your predications, imaginations, and fantasies (meaning) and physical reality will falsify them or not. We are capable of free association, imagination (prediction), and fiction (relations between predictions), just as we capable of our own falsification of our fictions (reason, calculation, computation). But this requires agency, and to prefer the rewards of knowledge (truth) over masturbation( sedation by daydreaming) . So we physically demonstrate the series: sense(collection), perception(disambiguation), auto-association (free association), prediction (imagination), fictions (compositions) produce hypotheses, and THEN we falsify (test) them (detect risk and losses) using Reason, Calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs) and computation (using assistants-to-memory to overcome limits – something a we cannot do without external instrumentation, especially symbols that preserve correspondence-name, and other properties of the name-noun expressed as measurements of varying degrees of precision.) So the question is which market are you serving when you speak? Purely psychological (psychotic), purely personal interpretation of interpersonal (solipsistic), interpersonal (empathic), practical action (evidentiary), generalization (analytic), generalization without empathy (aspergers), failure to generalize or empathize (autism). And this is the underlying question. Are you preventing your learning and continuous adaptation to reality by the incremental development of agency, or are you trying to do the opposite which is the primary function of all religions, and most philosophies, and most pseudoscience, and that is to justify not paying the psychological, emotional, physical, and material costs of adapting to reality such that you develop agency? And always and everywhere with very little effort we can ask any individual a few questions, and discover the economics of his or her system of decidability, given costs and returns. (my favorite being christians, muslims, and hindus, as we do not see this other than ‘nationalism’ in the far east and the non-superstitious right, and the upper classes who have and have demonstrated agency. We don’t think of language as a system of measurement (but measurement of what?) but a cursory disambiguation and operationalization of english vocabulary (names of references, whether person, place, thing, action, change etc – reduced to scales that are open to human perception. As an example, Time in english includes always – sometimes – just a bit ago – now – not just a bit ago – sometimes not, and never. Most english vocabulary follows this 3 to 5 to 7 example range, which is about the maximum of human means of disambiguation into scopes of untidily; matches human short term memory; matches the number of points necessary to falsify a line (reduce most errors). I find when I disambiguate a concept that is not well understood because of insufficient operationalization, I end up with twelve or more points. I find that when I serialize existing terms I end up with five or seven. And this difference illustrates the function of operationalization – to improve precision in human speech.

  • Which of Your Cognitive Markets Are You Serving?

    Oct 25, 2019, 9:48 AM The verb to be circumvents existence, which is what you are trying to circumvent testifying for, just as Heidegger was trying to circumvent and reverse the verb and noun – because both of you are tying to make speech conform to experience rather than speech test experience – which is it’s only POSSIBLE function unless you’re trying to lie. All imagination is produced by association and introspective causes justificationary but all speech like all action is falsificationary – whether or not we wish it to be. So you can describe your predictions, imaginations and fantasies (meaning) in an effort to deceive yourself and others, or you can speak your predictions, imaginations and fantasies (meaning) and have others falsify them or not, or you can act on your predications, imaginations, and fantasies (meaning) and physical reality will falsify them or not. We are capable of free association, imagination (prediction), and fiction (relations between predictions), just as we capable of our own falsification of our fictions (reason, calculation, computation). But this requires agency, and to prefer the rewards of knowledge (truth) over masturbation( sedation by daydreaming) . So we physically demonstrate the series: sense(collection), perception(disambiguation), auto-association (free association), prediction (imagination), fictions (compositions) produce hypotheses, and THEN we falsify (test) them (detect risk and losses) using Reason, Calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs) and computation (using assistants-to-memory to overcome limits – something a we cannot do without external instrumentation, especially symbols that preserve correspondence-name, and other properties of the name-noun expressed as measurements of varying degrees of precision.) So the question is which market are you serving when you speak? Purely psychological (psychotic), purely personal interpretation of interpersonal (solipsistic), interpersonal (empathic), practical action (evidentiary), generalization (analytic), generalization without empathy (aspergers), failure to generalize or empathize (autism). And this is the underlying question. Are you preventing your learning and continuous adaptation to reality by the incremental development of agency, or are you trying to do the opposite which is the primary function of all religions, and most philosophies, and most pseudoscience, and that is to justify not paying the psychological, emotional, physical, and material costs of adapting to reality such that you develop agency? And always and everywhere with very little effort we can ask any individual a few questions, and discover the economics of his or her system of decidability, given costs and returns. (my favorite being christians, muslims, and hindus, as we do not see this other than ‘nationalism’ in the far east and the non-superstitious right, and the upper classes who have and have demonstrated agency. We don’t think of language as a system of measurement (but measurement of what?) but a cursory disambiguation and operationalization of english vocabulary (names of references, whether person, place, thing, action, change etc – reduced to scales that are open to human perception. As an example, Time in english includes always – sometimes – just a bit ago – now – not just a bit ago – sometimes not, and never. Most english vocabulary follows this 3 to 5 to 7 example range, which is about the maximum of human means of disambiguation into scopes of untidily; matches human short term memory; matches the number of points necessary to falsify a line (reduce most errors). I find when I disambiguate a concept that is not well understood because of insufficient operationalization, I end up with twelve or more points. I find that when I serialize existing terms I end up with five or seven. And this difference illustrates the function of operationalization – to improve precision in human speech.

  • If You Want to Learn P

    Oct 25, 2019, 5:27 PM IF YOU WANT TO LEARN P Propertarianism is like aristotelianism – it is a huge project that reforms much human thought especially logic, language, epistemology (knowledge), psychology, sociology, ethics, law, and politics.

    1. You can learn about our proposed constitution and it’s policies (it’s a lot, and you might have to learn a bit bout economics and the justice system but you can do it.)
    2. You can learn the Big History of the competition between civilizations and in particular between european and semitic.(easy)
    3. You can learn why europeans evolved faster than the rest, and developed the only truth telling, high trust, wealthy, advanced, technological, civilization in so short a span in the bronze, ancient, and modern worlds – except for our period of failure during the abrahamic dark age. (relatively easy)
    4. You can learn a whole suite of the propertarian arguments (Takes some work)
    5. You can learn how to conduct propertarian arguments
      You can learn how to use the p-methodology (Not easy)
    6. And you can if you want to get into the foundations of the P-methodology, the completed scientific method, and logic and epistemology. (Hard)

    SO IF YOU WANT TO LEARN ANY OF THAT 1) you can use the site and read it. 2) you can follow along. 3) you can use my friends list to contact and catch the attention of a mentor by asking for help: alain, stepan, bill, luke, brandon, erik, steve, eli, …(thera are a lot more) 4) you can take our course (if you are patient enough for me to slowly release content – and I mean slowly). The other folks are better teachers than I am. Really. By far.

  • If You Want to Learn P

    Oct 25, 2019, 5:27 PM IF YOU WANT TO LEARN P Propertarianism is like aristotelianism – it is a huge project that reforms much human thought especially logic, language, epistemology (knowledge), psychology, sociology, ethics, law, and politics.

    1. You can learn about our proposed constitution and it’s policies (it’s a lot, and you might have to learn a bit bout economics and the justice system but you can do it.)
    2. You can learn the Big History of the competition between civilizations and in particular between european and semitic.(easy)
    3. You can learn why europeans evolved faster than the rest, and developed the only truth telling, high trust, wealthy, advanced, technological, civilization in so short a span in the bronze, ancient, and modern worlds – except for our period of failure during the abrahamic dark age. (relatively easy)
    4. You can learn a whole suite of the propertarian arguments (Takes some work)
    5. You can learn how to conduct propertarian arguments
      You can learn how to use the p-methodology (Not easy)
    6. And you can if you want to get into the foundations of the P-methodology, the completed scientific method, and logic and epistemology. (Hard)

    SO IF YOU WANT TO LEARN ANY OF THAT 1) you can use the site and read it. 2) you can follow along. 3) you can use my friends list to contact and catch the attention of a mentor by asking for help: alain, stepan, bill, luke, brandon, erik, steve, eli, …(thera are a lot more) 4) you can take our course (if you are patient enough for me to slowly release content – and I mean slowly). The other folks are better teachers than I am. Really. By far.

  • No. You’re Wrong

    Oct 30, 2019, 10:56 AM There is only one most parsimonious grammar of physical reality, and that’s the physics. There is only one most parsimonious grammar of life, and that’s conservation of energy; There is only one most parsimonious grammar of sentient life: and thats economics. There is only one most parsimonious grammar of ‘the grammars themselves’. There is only one most parsimonious grammar of history of human life: that’s the use of the grammars for the production of economics. There is no interpretation of history any more than there is interpretation of entropy, the conservation of energy, productivity, reciprocity, or testimony. in other words, all human history can be expressed as success or failure to defeat the red queen by using the grammars to organize production and cooperation we call economy. There is one science, one biochemistry, one set of grammars, and one economics, and one history written in them. There is history proper or lying. Period.

  • No. You’re Wrong

    Oct 30, 2019, 10:56 AM There is only one most parsimonious grammar of physical reality, and that’s the physics. There is only one most parsimonious grammar of life, and that’s conservation of energy; There is only one most parsimonious grammar of sentient life: and thats economics. There is only one most parsimonious grammar of ‘the grammars themselves’. There is only one most parsimonious grammar of history of human life: that’s the use of the grammars for the production of economics. There is no interpretation of history any more than there is interpretation of entropy, the conservation of energy, productivity, reciprocity, or testimony. in other words, all human history can be expressed as success or failure to defeat the red queen by using the grammars to organize production and cooperation we call economy. There is one science, one biochemistry, one set of grammars, and one economics, and one history written in them. There is history proper or lying. Period.