Dec 19, 2019, 7:03 PM The question is only whether metaphysics = paradigm. As far as I know it does (must). So to say there is no such thing as metaphysics, is only to say that there is no such thing as relativism. In other words, there is either a most parsimonious paradigm for the description of reality or their isn’t. As far as I know there is always and everywhere one most parsimonious and most complete paradigm, and that discipline we call science slowly converges upon it. And that this most parsimonious paradigm always and everywhere will provide decidability between less coherent (complete and consistent) paradigms. And the current limitation on progress in physical science is our present failure (or challenge of) creating a language (mathematics or logic of) of geometric rather than point (positional) relations. The more obvious demands of protein modeling appear to be working toward a solution to that problem more so than physicists. As far as I know social science (cooperation, law, politics) is solved because it’s at human scale. As far as I know economics remains unsolved and is a harder problem than the transition from positional (curves) to geometric (shapes), if for no other reason than we simply can’t create consistent categories so are stuck with bayesian categorization, prediction, falsification, and adaptation, with symmetries (which are showing up in certain economic patterns) providing the intermediary measures that the original data itself cannot. So, I don’t see the meaning of a discipline of metaphysics other than the rather obvious demarcation between deflationary (logical, operational, empirical, science) and fictional (allegorical) grammars (vocabularies). And it certainly appears to do nothing more than that. The underlying conflict being that the most parsimonious language launders information present in experience. And as we have seen the empathic vs analytic difference in demand for priority on one hand, and a desire for psychological sedation (suppression, mindfulness,) on the other. And from my tests over the past two years in particular that (masculine vs feminine cognition ) appears to be impossible to resolve. Which as far as I know is the source of the conflict of the present age, and what’s driving the incentive to separate (or dominate).
Theme: Grammar
-
Does Metaphysics Exist? Depends on The Definition.
Dec 19, 2019, 7:03 PM The question is only whether metaphysics = paradigm. As far as I know it does (must). So to say there is no such thing as metaphysics, is only to say that there is no such thing as relativism. In other words, there is either a most parsimonious paradigm for the description of reality or their isn’t. As far as I know there is always and everywhere one most parsimonious and most complete paradigm, and that discipline we call science slowly converges upon it. And that this most parsimonious paradigm always and everywhere will provide decidability between less coherent (complete and consistent) paradigms. And the current limitation on progress in physical science is our present failure (or challenge of) creating a language (mathematics or logic of) of geometric rather than point (positional) relations. The more obvious demands of protein modeling appear to be working toward a solution to that problem more so than physicists. As far as I know social science (cooperation, law, politics) is solved because it’s at human scale. As far as I know economics remains unsolved and is a harder problem than the transition from positional (curves) to geometric (shapes), if for no other reason than we simply can’t create consistent categories so are stuck with bayesian categorization, prediction, falsification, and adaptation, with symmetries (which are showing up in certain economic patterns) providing the intermediary measures that the original data itself cannot. So, I don’t see the meaning of a discipline of metaphysics other than the rather obvious demarcation between deflationary (logical, operational, empirical, science) and fictional (allegorical) grammars (vocabularies). And it certainly appears to do nothing more than that. The underlying conflict being that the most parsimonious language launders information present in experience. And as we have seen the empathic vs analytic difference in demand for priority on one hand, and a desire for psychological sedation (suppression, mindfulness,) on the other. And from my tests over the past two years in particular that (masculine vs feminine cognition ) appears to be impossible to resolve. Which as far as I know is the source of the conflict of the present age, and what’s driving the incentive to separate (or dominate).
-
the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian E
the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics, The Ternary Logic of Social Science. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/the-grammars-are-as-important-an-insight-as-is-testimonial-truth-propertarian-ethics-the-ternary-logic-of-social-science/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 04:04:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265494003245555714
-
the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics, The Ternary Logic of Social Science.
Dec 30, 2019, 11:35 AM It’s increasingly clear to me that the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics, The Ternary Logic of Social Science. Why? Scientists, philosophers, logicians, mathematicians who don’t understand the foundations (grammars) of their disciplines.Scientists: It’s testimony on results after falsification of all available dimensions. The means of falsification are irrelevant. Philosophers: avoiding cost, actionability, informational asymmetry, and reciprocity creating unreality. Idealism is merely confession of ignorance. The majority of Philosophical terms and categories are dead because they were WRONG. Logicians: there is no closure, and logics are only falsificationary, you can’t prove anything without appeal to reality. Stop treating it as scriptural interpretation (hermeneutics). Mathematicians: it’s just a language of positional names limited by the grammar of ratios, meaning that positional names provide both perfect disambiguation by a single constant relation (position) and position can be used to generate endless names, so it is endlessly possible to describe constant relations, where the term pattern refers only to some set of constant relation. It’s not that math is unreasonably effective at describing constant relations it’s that it’s only possible for it to describe constant relations.
-
the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics, The Ternary Logic of Social Science.
Dec 30, 2019, 11:35 AM It’s increasingly clear to me that the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics, The Ternary Logic of Social Science. Why? Scientists, philosophers, logicians, mathematicians who don’t understand the foundations (grammars) of their disciplines.Scientists: It’s testimony on results after falsification of all available dimensions. The means of falsification are irrelevant. Philosophers: avoiding cost, actionability, informational asymmetry, and reciprocity creating unreality. Idealism is merely confession of ignorance. The majority of Philosophical terms and categories are dead because they were WRONG. Logicians: there is no closure, and logics are only falsificationary, you can’t prove anything without appeal to reality. Stop treating it as scriptural interpretation (hermeneutics). Mathematicians: it’s just a language of positional names limited by the grammar of ratios, meaning that positional names provide both perfect disambiguation by a single constant relation (position) and position can be used to generate endless names, so it is endlessly possible to describe constant relations, where the term pattern refers only to some set of constant relation. It’s not that math is unreasonably effective at describing constant relations it’s that it’s only possible for it to describe constant relations.
-
DEFINITION: “GRAMMAR” IN P
DEFINITION: “GRAMMAR” IN P https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/definition-grammar-in-p/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 03:56:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265492074440413185
-
DEFINITION: “GRAMMAR” IN P
Dec 31, 2019, 12:54 PM “CURT, WHAT’S A GRAMMAR IN PROPERTARIANISM?” (important)(core) A grammar has traditionally referred to a book containing the rules of a language. But I had to put quite a bit of work into ‘disambiguating’ the terms we use in language. The human cognitive facility consists of identification of constant relations between stimuli in time resulting in categorization (identity). The human auto association facility consists of discovering relations between categories (identities). The human memory facility consists of repetition of stimuli or rehearsal from short term memory, to create, reinforce, change, and eliminate constant relation within and between categories (locations, places, barriers, models, identities) The human logical facility consist of tests of constant, inconstant, and unrecognized relations between states (categories, identities). The human grammar facility refers to our physical ability to perform continuous recursive disambiguation using a stream of signals, most commonly in the form of sounds. The human language facility refers to the use of patterns of symbols or sounds in sequence of continuously recursive attempts at disambiguation. A language consists of Phonemes (sounds), Morphemes(meaningful combination of sounds – roots), Vocabulary (words), Phrases (state), Sentences (changes in state – transactions), Stories (collections of transactions), Grammar (rules of organization making possible disambiguation by inference), and Syntax (further disambiguation – specifically when writing). A vocabulary consists of Names (Nouns, references to referents), Name Substitutes (pronouns), Properties (Adjective, state), Operations (verbs, actions, state of acting), Properties of Operations (Adverb). and Approval or Rejection (yes no true false agree disagree etc). Note that I’ve clarified some terms here a little differently than we traditionally do. However (this is the issue) the collections of permissible dimensions (paradigms) limit the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation: The logic of the paradigm. This is why…. Let’s use math because it’s the most simple language we have that all of us share. Mathematics consists of names of positions (numbers), variables (pronouns), names of operations ( mathematical operations, verbs), phrases (expressions), statements (functions), sentences (transactions), proofs (stories), and Approval or Rejection (true false). There are no adverbs or adjectives. What differs between ordinary language and mathematical language is that mathematics (the language of positional names) and ordinary language (the language of human experience) differ in ‘dimensions of permissible references’ to both Names (nouns) and Operations (verbs). And we can do the same analysis for every Grammar (system of rules) in the spectrum of: math, accounting, logics, programming, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, recipes, protocols, laws, testimony, descriptions, ordinary language, narration, storytelling, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits – and everything in between. And we use the term “Deflationary grammar” for the narrowest grammars (math, logics), “ordinary grammar” for ordinary language, and “Inflationary grammar” for the widest grammars (story, fiction, fictionalism, deceits).
Deflationary < ---- Ordinary ----> Inflationary.
So instead of the traditional hierarchy:
Human Facilities -> language -> phoneme -> morpheme -> ... ... paradigms (metaphysics) -> vocabulary -> grammar -> syntax.
Instead we have:
Human Facilities (see above) -> vocabulary -> paradigms(dimensions) -> ... grammar of paradigm(rules of story, transaction, ... ... function, expression, operation, names: the LOGIC of the paradigm) -> ... ... ... permissible vocabulary -> necessary syntax.
So a Grammar refers to the Paradigm (permissible dimensions of perception, cognition, and action), the Names, Operations, and Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, story organization) and the LOGIC (constant relations) that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness. So in P we use a ‘grammar’ to refer to the Vocabulary, logic, syntax of a paradigm. And when we use the term “the Grammars’ we mean the spectrum And Operational Grammar or Testimony is a Deflationary Grammar: a Deflation (constraint upon) ordinary language grammar, limiting it to a single point of view, absent the verb to be, using complete promissory sentences, describing a series of operations (human actions), resulting in testable transactions (sentence), and sets of transactions (testimony).
-
DEFINITION: “GRAMMAR” IN P
Dec 31, 2019, 12:54 PM “CURT, WHAT’S A GRAMMAR IN PROPERTARIANISM?” (important)(core) A grammar has traditionally referred to a book containing the rules of a language. But I had to put quite a bit of work into ‘disambiguating’ the terms we use in language. The human cognitive facility consists of identification of constant relations between stimuli in time resulting in categorization (identity). The human auto association facility consists of discovering relations between categories (identities). The human memory facility consists of repetition of stimuli or rehearsal from short term memory, to create, reinforce, change, and eliminate constant relation within and between categories (locations, places, barriers, models, identities) The human logical facility consist of tests of constant, inconstant, and unrecognized relations between states (categories, identities). The human grammar facility refers to our physical ability to perform continuous recursive disambiguation using a stream of signals, most commonly in the form of sounds. The human language facility refers to the use of patterns of symbols or sounds in sequence of continuously recursive attempts at disambiguation. A language consists of Phonemes (sounds), Morphemes(meaningful combination of sounds – roots), Vocabulary (words), Phrases (state), Sentences (changes in state – transactions), Stories (collections of transactions), Grammar (rules of organization making possible disambiguation by inference), and Syntax (further disambiguation – specifically when writing). A vocabulary consists of Names (Nouns, references to referents), Name Substitutes (pronouns), Properties (Adjective, state), Operations (verbs, actions, state of acting), Properties of Operations (Adverb). and Approval or Rejection (yes no true false agree disagree etc). Note that I’ve clarified some terms here a little differently than we traditionally do. However (this is the issue) the collections of permissible dimensions (paradigms) limit the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation: The logic of the paradigm. This is why…. Let’s use math because it’s the most simple language we have that all of us share. Mathematics consists of names of positions (numbers), variables (pronouns), names of operations ( mathematical operations, verbs), phrases (expressions), statements (functions), sentences (transactions), proofs (stories), and Approval or Rejection (true false). There are no adverbs or adjectives. What differs between ordinary language and mathematical language is that mathematics (the language of positional names) and ordinary language (the language of human experience) differ in ‘dimensions of permissible references’ to both Names (nouns) and Operations (verbs). And we can do the same analysis for every Grammar (system of rules) in the spectrum of: math, accounting, logics, programming, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, recipes, protocols, laws, testimony, descriptions, ordinary language, narration, storytelling, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits – and everything in between. And we use the term “Deflationary grammar” for the narrowest grammars (math, logics), “ordinary grammar” for ordinary language, and “Inflationary grammar” for the widest grammars (story, fiction, fictionalism, deceits).
Deflationary < ---- Ordinary ----> Inflationary.
So instead of the traditional hierarchy:
Human Facilities -> language -> phoneme -> morpheme -> ... ... paradigms (metaphysics) -> vocabulary -> grammar -> syntax.
Instead we have:
Human Facilities (see above) -> vocabulary -> paradigms(dimensions) -> ... grammar of paradigm(rules of story, transaction, ... ... function, expression, operation, names: the LOGIC of the paradigm) -> ... ... ... permissible vocabulary -> necessary syntax.
So a Grammar refers to the Paradigm (permissible dimensions of perception, cognition, and action), the Names, Operations, and Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, story organization) and the LOGIC (constant relations) that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness. So in P we use a ‘grammar’ to refer to the Vocabulary, logic, syntax of a paradigm. And when we use the term “the Grammars’ we mean the spectrum And Operational Grammar or Testimony is a Deflationary Grammar: a Deflation (constraint upon) ordinary language grammar, limiting it to a single point of view, absent the verb to be, using complete promissory sentences, describing a series of operations (human actions), resulting in testable transactions (sentence), and sets of transactions (testimony).
-
The Grammars of Civilizations
The Grammars of Civilizations https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/26/the-grammars-of-civilizations/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-26 21:10:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265389857242677248
-
The Grammars of Civilizations
Jan 5, 2020, 4:52 PM Europeans Develop Competition-law, Reason, Realism, Naturalism, Empiricism, Technology-Science, Geometry. CALCULATION Chinese Develop Bureaucracy-rule, Reason-lite-Wisdom Literature, Realism, Naturalism, Technology but not science, and Arithmetic. They settle on Reason and Bureaucracy. ~REASON Indians Develop Class Roles, Political Reason, Supernaturalism, Mythicism, Pragmatism, limited technology, arithmetic and positional names. That this is the remnant of a military order is lost in time. The indians settle on “the Way” – wisdom literature. REASONABLENESS Iranians-Persians Develop the optimum human, Hierarchy instead of Castes and Roles. But are seduced by babylon and their own aryan religion. The are ruined by the muslims and despite, like the Germans, rising out of it, descend once again and they can’t get out of it now (similar to how the west is being brought down again by Judaism and islam). IDEALS The Egyptians Run with Animism and Archtetypes and Myth and it’s beautiful. They try a single dominant god but the priests wisely reverse it. MYTHS The Jews Invent the abrahamic method of deceit by combining DICTATORSHIP LAW OF PARASITISM The Arabs DICTATORSHIP WISDOM LIT OF PREDATION