Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • Are the Logics Falsificationary or Justificationary in Precedence?

    Feb 8, 2020, 1:18 PM Given the Human logical facility Given the Human grammatical facility Given the Logics of free association(justification), the logics of language (internal consistency – inference), and operational logic (existential possibility – demonstrated); Given possibilities for decidability of nonsensical, undecidable, sufficient for action, truth candidate, tautology, falsehood. Are the logics falsificationary or justificationary in precedence?

  • Are the Logics Falsificationary or Justificationary in Precedence?

    Feb 8, 2020, 1:18 PM Given the Human logical facility Given the Human grammatical facility Given the Logics of free association(justification), the logics of language (internal consistency – inference), and operational logic (existential possibility – demonstrated); Given possibilities for decidability of nonsensical, undecidable, sufficient for action, truth candidate, tautology, falsehood. Are the logics falsificationary or justificationary in precedence?

  • Eliminating the Verb to Be (copula). Is It Required?

    Feb 8, 2020, 6:54 PM

    —“Is failure to use ePrime in P an error? Why/not?”—Jonathan Besler

    Brandon Hayes: No; you can speak truthfully without speaking operationally. Curt Doolittle: Also. You can falsify another’s speech by translating it to operational prose. Again, like many things, once you learn the form you will identify when people are lying, and how they are lying, and gain the ability to explain how they are lying – including why they might be. And if someone questions the truth of your statements you can expand them to the fully operational form and demonstrate that you were merely exercising convenience. Just recall that lying in P means you failed due diligence – you don’t need to intend to. Its like transferring stolen property. You were involved and participated in the crime because you failed due diligence. Edit

  • Eliminating the Verb to Be (copula). Is It Required?

    Feb 8, 2020, 6:54 PM

    —“Is failure to use ePrime in P an error? Why/not?”—Jonathan Besler

    Brandon Hayes: No; you can speak truthfully without speaking operationally. Curt Doolittle: Also. You can falsify another’s speech by translating it to operational prose. Again, like many things, once you learn the form you will identify when people are lying, and how they are lying, and gain the ability to explain how they are lying – including why they might be. And if someone questions the truth of your statements you can expand them to the fully operational form and demonstrate that you were merely exercising convenience. Just recall that lying in P means you failed due diligence – you don’t need to intend to. Its like transferring stolen property. You were involved and participated in the crime because you failed due diligence. Edit

  • Ivan Tries and Fails – Hot to Spot a Sophist

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:42 AM (people not grasping closure) P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible) thought. … Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any definition P-law is scientific.

    —“Let’s suppose all that is true, then how could you make a case for “P-law” in anything but P-law? The fact that you consistently engage in bog-standard rhetoric to “prove” P-law puts the lie to the whole thing.”—Ivan the Above Average @AboveIvan

    How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic? The fact that you counter signal closure when there is none w/o the full spectrum of falsifications (in P) puts a lie to the whole thing you call ‘rationalism’. You never seek to understand. That’s why you fail. You see, I understand your theological substitution. I always have. I just haven’t taken the time to fully entrap you in demonstrating it. The only way to falsify P is to run cases: tests. All you will discover is undecidability (testimony), where you find falsehood (inference). The fact that you’re still stuck in the early 20th c because philosophy was a dead end for truth, and limited to choice (or deceit) is simply that you’ve overinvested in a malinvestment. Reformation is extremely expensive. And humans protect investments (loss aversion). Either statements are testifiable or they are not. If they are not testifiable one cannot make a truth claim. For a statement to be testifiable requires it survive the tests of all dimensions, because the only closure available is falsification of all dimensions. Sorry. Just is.

  • Ivan Tries and Fails – Hot to Spot a Sophist

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:42 AM (people not grasping closure) P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible) thought. … Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any definition P-law is scientific.

    —“Let’s suppose all that is true, then how could you make a case for “P-law” in anything but P-law? The fact that you consistently engage in bog-standard rhetoric to “prove” P-law puts the lie to the whole thing.”—Ivan the Above Average @AboveIvan

    How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic? The fact that you counter signal closure when there is none w/o the full spectrum of falsifications (in P) puts a lie to the whole thing you call ‘rationalism’. You never seek to understand. That’s why you fail. You see, I understand your theological substitution. I always have. I just haven’t taken the time to fully entrap you in demonstrating it. The only way to falsify P is to run cases: tests. All you will discover is undecidability (testimony), where you find falsehood (inference). The fact that you’re still stuck in the early 20th c because philosophy was a dead end for truth, and limited to choice (or deceit) is simply that you’ve overinvested in a malinvestment. Reformation is extremely expensive. And humans protect investments (loss aversion). Either statements are testifiable or they are not. If they are not testifiable one cannot make a truth claim. For a statement to be testifiable requires it survive the tests of all dimensions, because the only closure available is falsification of all dimensions. Sorry. Just is.

  • P Grammars Tie All the Ways of Knowing Together

    Apr 3, 2020, 10:49 AM by Ryan Drummond I think reading Jung without reading Nietzsche can easily bait one into intellectual (and moral) hazard. I’d say, too, that reading Nietzsche without reading the cognitive sciences or the work of yourself, for example, can bait people into empirical hazard. The breadth of such work simply can’t be understood by reading one author, or even two authors. You need to cover the existential, the theological, the moral, the historical, the cultural, the psyche, and the scientific objectivity to get a ‘clearer’ picture of the totality. Even then we can easily fall into traps of bias and error! I admire how P takes all of these things and knits them together into a logical web of truth that can be followed and understood a little more clearly by those with no exposure or those with partial exposure to these things. It also, if you want to take it far enough, opens up avenues of thought and totality for even hardened scholars in such fields of study.

  • P Grammars Tie All the Ways of Knowing Together

    Apr 3, 2020, 10:49 AM by Ryan Drummond I think reading Jung without reading Nietzsche can easily bait one into intellectual (and moral) hazard. I’d say, too, that reading Nietzsche without reading the cognitive sciences or the work of yourself, for example, can bait people into empirical hazard. The breadth of such work simply can’t be understood by reading one author, or even two authors. You need to cover the existential, the theological, the moral, the historical, the cultural, the psyche, and the scientific objectivity to get a ‘clearer’ picture of the totality. Even then we can easily fall into traps of bias and error! I admire how P takes all of these things and knits them together into a logical web of truth that can be followed and understood a little more clearly by those with no exposure or those with partial exposure to these things. It also, if you want to take it far enough, opens up avenues of thought and totality for even hardened scholars in such fields of study.

  • Our People Use at Least Three Grammars, Speak in A Compromise Grammar (important)

      OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic)

    'OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic) 1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean 'compromise on common ground' and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with 'priests' for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.'

    1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean ‘compromise on common ground’ and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with ‘priests’ for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.’ OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic) 1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean ‘compromise on common ground’ and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with ‘priests’ for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.

  • Our People Use at Least Three Grammars, Speak in A Compromise Grammar (important)

      OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic)

    'OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic) 1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean 'compromise on common ground' and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with 'priests' for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.'

    1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean ‘compromise on common ground’ and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with ‘priests’ for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.’ OUR PEOPLE USE AT LEAST THREE GRAMMARS, SPEAK IN A COMPROMISE GRAMMAR (important) (a grammar = paradigm, vocabulary, operations, logic) 1) Theology (intuition) Feminine 2) Philosophy (reason) Compromise 3) Law-Science (action) Masculine. and otherwise in: 4) Ordinary (normative) language Some of us specialize. Some of us generalize (ordinary language). Some of us combine. I largely speak in law-science I can bridge to philosophy (rationalism) I can bridge to theology (intuition) This bridges mean ‘compromise on common ground’ and avoid uncommon ground. We are common ground on natural law, christian love, and some sort of constitution (usually). We are on uncommon ground on atheism, fundamentalism, sophistry and critique, and pseudoscience. Western civilization has always been trifunctional, with ‘priests’ for law, and faith, and generals for war. We can only succeed as western civilization as trifunctional. Because human beings feel, think, and act by trifunctional differences. Because those differences are biological. And it is the COMPROMISE between those positions by exchange within the market despite our desires for extremes exclusively in our interests that allowed us to out-compete all other peoples until the second semitic destruction of our civilization from within in the 20th century.