This is one of those surprisingly difficult concepts. We avoid the verb to be in operational language because it allows you the pretense of knowledge (promising what you can’t promise) without articulating a causal relationship. The simple example being the difference between ‘the book is on the table’ and ‘I promise i recall seeing a book on the table in the hallway’ or ‘I promise i see a book on the table and if you observe the table in the hall you will see a book on it also.” While this is a simple example, this operationalizing of language into testimonial speech makes almost all sophistry and deceit impossible to construct (really). In fact, most sophomoric philosophically ‘profound’ questions cannot be constructed in operational and testimonial terms. If you want to know more, spend thirty minutes reading four wiki articles: THE COPULA (VERB TO BE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_(linguistics) EPRIME (ELIMINATING THE COPULA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime PERFORMATIVE (EXISTENTIAL) TRUTH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#Performative (then read the rest of the article) OPERATIONALISM https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/operationalism FALSIFIABILITY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Falsificationism By the use of performative statements, in ePrime, in Operational Vocabulary, we can falsify almost any claim to knowledge, understanding, consistency, coherence, and truth claims simply by the fact that it is almost impossible to state a falsehood in such gramamtical constraints, just as it is almost impossible to make well formed mathematical or programming statements in the grammatical constraints of mathematics in programming. DISAMBIGUATION BY SERIALIZATION AND OPERATIONALISM Most of P-Logic invovles learning how to disambiguate at term by creating an ordered list of terms (serialization) restating them in operational language, and adjusting their definitions so that they are each unique in meaning, yet represent a point on the spectrum of whatever constant relation you are making use of. THis is the first step in learning propertarian methods.
Theme: Grammar
-
What Does P Mean? Some Common Terms in Propertarianism
What Does P Mean? Some Common Terms in Propertarianism https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/what-does-p-mean-some-common-terms-in-propertarianism/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 15:51:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264947296791343104
-
What Does P Mean? Some Common Terms in Propertarianism
Jan 30, 2020, 4:24 PM Yes P = Propertarianism, and we use: P-Method, P-Logic, P-Testimony or Testimonialism, P-Ethics or Propertarian ethics, P-Law or Natural Law of Reciprocity, Disambiguation by Serialization and Operationalism, ePrime, The Copula. Operational Language and Vocabulary. Inflationary and deflationary Grammars. Fictionalisms. Deceits. Abrahamic method of deceit. The Grammars, Ternary Logic, Compatibilism, The Coercive Technologies, Three Classes of Elites, Falsification, Decidability, Truth as Demand for decidability., Warranty of Due Diligence, Reciprocity, Imposition of costs, Demonstrated Interest. Property In Toto. And we repeat the properties of Reciprocity, Testimony, property in to, the sequence of deceits, the sequences of crimes, and the abrahamic method pretty much constantly, and we describe human behavior in these terms using the language of economics. It seems overwhelming. If we get it into ‘propertarianism for dummies’ I’m not sure it will be. But it’s been harder than we thought.
-
What Does P Mean? Some Common Terms in Propertarianism
Jan 30, 2020, 4:24 PM Yes P = Propertarianism, and we use: P-Method, P-Logic, P-Testimony or Testimonialism, P-Ethics or Propertarian ethics, P-Law or Natural Law of Reciprocity, Disambiguation by Serialization and Operationalism, ePrime, The Copula. Operational Language and Vocabulary. Inflationary and deflationary Grammars. Fictionalisms. Deceits. Abrahamic method of deceit. The Grammars, Ternary Logic, Compatibilism, The Coercive Technologies, Three Classes of Elites, Falsification, Decidability, Truth as Demand for decidability., Warranty of Due Diligence, Reciprocity, Imposition of costs, Demonstrated Interest. Property In Toto. And we repeat the properties of Reciprocity, Testimony, property in to, the sequence of deceits, the sequences of crimes, and the abrahamic method pretty much constantly, and we describe human behavior in these terms using the language of economics. It seems overwhelming. If we get it into ‘propertarianism for dummies’ I’m not sure it will be. But it’s been harder than we thought.
-
Yes We Can Falsify All Human Speech in Court.
Jan 30, 2020, 10:11 PM We can, and do, falsify all human action in court. The question was, could we falsify all human speech in court. The answer is yes. The usual problem is that someone wants an ideology(political) philosophy (secular theological), or theology (supernatural theological) solution – which is impossible. Because Science (truthful testimony) is falsificationary. As far as I know, P is complete. And there are no false or ir-reciprocal statements that can survive its falsification. That fact that people can’t get their noggins around the fact that all science (testimony) like markets (competition) is falsificationary is a common problem. But it stems from a failure to understand that science is falsificationary, then demanding P, like philosophy, ideology, or religion be justificationary. It’s not. So they criticize P for not being a science on the one hand by false presumption science is justificationary, and then complain P isn’t justificationary. Kind of silly really, but you can see where they get it from. Most people are stuck in the error of “Mathiness” because they don’t grasp the constitution of, or limits of, mathematics. Math breaks down in all three directions: the very small, the very large, and the very-human (cognitive): economics. If you need a positive theology, philosophy, ideology, sophism, or pseudoscience, then I understand the via-positiva is necessary for simple minds. But grownups are not afraid of via-negativa (skepticism), because we know all non trivial non tautological propositions are contingent, because we may always or nearly always, discover some novel parsimony that allows us to reorganize our paradigms for greater consistency, correspondence, coherence, completeness and parsimony than before. Edit
-
Curt Can You Explain EPrime to A Newbie?
Curt Can You Explain EPrime to A Newbie? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/curt-can-you-explain-eprime-to-a-newbie/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 11:46:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264885500411809793
-
Curt Can You Explain EPrime to A Newbie?
Jan 31, 2020, 8:59 AM
—“Curt Doolittle, Can you help explain e prime for a newbie? (E prime is a the language taught in Propertarian circles – to reduce every statement down to an operational level – to test it for truth.)”—Rae Liera
I don’t think it’s that hard: E-PRIME E-Prime (short for English-Prime or English Prime, sometimes denoted Ć or Eā²) is a version of the English language that excludes all forms of the verb to be, including all conjugations, contractions and archaic forms. Some scholars advocate using E-Prime as a device to clarify thinking and strengthen writing. PRETENSE OF KNOWLEDGE Kellogg and Bourland describe misuse of the verb to be as creating a “deity mode of speech”, allowing “even the most ignorant to transform their opinions magically into god-like pronouncements on the nature of things”. Use of E-Prime reduces the possibility of deception, suggestion, misunderstanding or conflict. Korzybski observed improvement “of one full letter grade” by “students who did not generalize by using that infinitive”. In other words, you will dramatically improve your own understanding and ability to communicate by writing in eprime. PROPERTARIAN CONTEXT So, P uses Disambiguation by serialization and operationaliztion, and ePrime, written in complete sentences (transactions), where complete sentences or sets of sentences (full accounting) describe changes in state of demonstrated interests (investments). This produces a value neutral financial or economic language of psychology, ethics, sociology, and politics. It is also, like accounting, very difficult to ‘fudge’ (lie). DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS OF THE VERB TO-BE In the English language, the verb ‘to be’ (also known as the copula) has several distinct functions, all of which are reducible to “testimony on the terms of existence”. 1. identity, of the form “noun copula definite-noun” [The cat is my only pet]; [The cat is Garfield] 2. class membership, of the form “definite-noun copula noun” [Garfield is a cat] 3. class inclusion, of the form “noun copula noun” [A cat is an animal] 4. predication, of the form “noun copula adjective” [The cat is furry] 5. auxiliary, of the form “noun copula verb” [The cat is sleeping]; [The cat is being bitten by the dog]. The examples illustrate two different uses of ‘be’ as an auxiliary. In the first, ‘be’ is part of the progressive aspect, used with “-ing” on the verb; in the second, it is part of the passive, as indicated by the perfect participle of a transitive verb. 6. existence, of the form “there copula noun” [There is a cat] location, of the form “noun copula place-phrase” [The cat is on the mat]; [The cat is here] Bourland sees specifically the “identity” and “predication” functions as pernicious, but advocates eliminating all forms for the sake of simplicity. In the case of the “existence” form (and less idiomatically, the “location” form), one might (for example) simply substitute the verb “exists”. Other copula-substitutes in English include taste, feel, smell, sound, grow, remain, stay, and turn, among others a user of E-prime might use instead of to be. Examples Words not used in E-prime include: be, being, been, am, is, isn’t, are, aren’t, was, wasn’t, were, and weren’t. Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be are also not used, including: I’m, you’re, we’re, they’re, he’s, she’s, it’s, there’s, here’s, where’s, how’s, what’s, who’s, and that’s. E-Prime also prohibits contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as “ain’t”. GENERAL SEMANTICS General semantics was a self improvement movement that (roughly) suggested that if you improve the use of your language so that it is more correspondent to reality (or something at least) that you will train yourself (similar to stoic rituals in list making) to have greater understanding and mindfulness of the world. I would state this differently in that P logic using the above techniques seeks to create a value neutral standard of weights and measures by which we interpret the world, that is the most parsimonious system of weights and measure that is possible – and – is most correspondent consistent and coherent with the world. (this is the aristotelian project). P IS THE OPPOSITE OF POSTMODERNISM The opposite proposition of P is that of Theology, Postmodernism, and Generative Anthropology, all of which attempt social construction that is non-correspondent, inconsistent, non-coherent with reality in order to use deception to coerce people into submission to some narrative of desirable or undesirable deceit. In other words, there is leftist postmodernism (social construction) and rightist postmodernism (social construction) and both are means of deceit in order to compensate for lack of military and economic power. In other words, this is the purvey of pseudoscientists, financialists, mystics and priests: deception. And yes, I realize, people have a hard time with reality and want comforting deceits. But there are three other choices: physical ritual, buddhist and stoic-epicurean self discipline (emotional), and the scientific truth (intellectual). All three produce mindfulness without ‘the big lies of social constructions.’ ORIGINS OF EPRIME D. David Bourland Jr., studied under Alfred Korzybski, and devised E-Prime as an addition to Korzybski’s general semantics in the late 1940s. BOOKS Bourland published the concept in a 1965 essay entitled “A Linguistic Note: Writing in E-Prime” Bourland collected and published three volumes of essays in support of his innovation. – To Be or Not: An E-Prime Anthology (1991) – More E-Prime: To Be or Not II (1994) – E-Prime III: a third anthology, published (1997). LINKS TO PAPERS ONLINE https://web.archive.org/web/20130204204954/http://www.generalsemantics.org//srv/htdocs/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/articles/etc/46-3-bourland.pdf http://www.generalsemantics.org//srv/htdocs/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/articles/etc/44-2-kellogg.pdf http://www.hilgart.org/papers_html/091S196.B07.html http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm http://www.textjournal.com.au/april16/frazer.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20061221093237/http://learn-gs.org/library/elaine-eprime.htm ( FYI: Bill Joslin Brandon Hayes )
-
We Do Have a Name for It: Disambiguation
Jan 31, 2020, 6:12 PM by Bill Joslin
—“I think one of the aspects of mental existence we have no name for yet …”—CurtD
But we do have a name for it: its called disambiguation. And as far as I understand the fundamental process of the brain exists as a neuronal competition for caloric reward granted by disambiguation of sensory data which affords further acquisition of calories (to reduce it to a base level). Disambiguation – as far as I’m concerned – is the term. The issue with human suffering – or more aptly, human objectivity – pertains to the difficulty entailed in disambiguating jntentionality of our predictive faculty whereby past predictions (intentionally held to maintain POV) of this moment becomes superimposed upon sensory faculty – and thus results in an ambiguity (an ambiguation) which that reaps caloric rewards. The tough nut being disambiguating the array of self generated models (predictions) which persist due to higher predicted rewards (preference) from models that survive pattern matching to updated inputs. But its kind of simple – the former requires effort and is often accompanied by excitation or tension. the later provides relief because once the model matches the input, the caloric cost of the model comes to and end – no more effort required. it takes effort to be incorrect. coming into correction is like coming to rest. truth is the reprieve that escapist desire.
-
We Do Have a Name for It: Disambiguation
Jan 31, 2020, 6:12 PM by Bill Joslin
—“I think one of the aspects of mental existence we have no name for yet …”—CurtD
But we do have a name for it: its called disambiguation. And as far as I understand the fundamental process of the brain exists as a neuronal competition for caloric reward granted by disambiguation of sensory data which affords further acquisition of calories (to reduce it to a base level). Disambiguation – as far as I’m concerned – is the term. The issue with human suffering – or more aptly, human objectivity – pertains to the difficulty entailed in disambiguating jntentionality of our predictive faculty whereby past predictions (intentionally held to maintain POV) of this moment becomes superimposed upon sensory faculty – and thus results in an ambiguity (an ambiguation) which that reaps caloric rewards. The tough nut being disambiguating the array of self generated models (predictions) which persist due to higher predicted rewards (preference) from models that survive pattern matching to updated inputs. But its kind of simple – the former requires effort and is often accompanied by excitation or tension. the later provides relief because once the model matches the input, the caloric cost of the model comes to and end – no more effort required. it takes effort to be incorrect. coming into correction is like coming to rest. truth is the reprieve that escapist desire.
-
The Three-C,Q Method
The Three-C,Q Method https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/the-three-cq-method/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 23:10:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264695336867676166