Apr 13, 2020, 8:30 PM by Bjarg Jonsson Each academic discipline has its own language and terminology. Part of becoming a professional in a discipline requires a basic mastery of the language used in describing the principles of operation. I have no academic background in law. However, with a Black’s Law Dictionary one can research what particular words mean in the practice of law. Reasonable suspicion, probable cause, jury nullification, etc can be understood by layman; otherwise a policeman could not arrest someone for a crime and write the changing documents with the elements to reach probable cause for indictment. I was taught in grad school, the difference between average people and bright people was not whether average people could learn something. But bright people just learn faster, which would be an advantage in multi discipline learning. John Mark is very important because he is explaining the concepts of propertarianism in the language of the everyday person and they get it. When we want to impress each other with how smart we are we use words (big) which are not normally in the other guy’s lexicon. Want reach the masses, you have use words out of their dictionary. They will get it, tit for tat.
Theme: Grammar
-
Each Academic Discipline Has Its Own Language and Terminology.
Apr 13, 2020, 8:30 PM by Bjarg Jonsson Each academic discipline has its own language and terminology. Part of becoming a professional in a discipline requires a basic mastery of the language used in describing the principles of operation. I have no academic background in law. However, with a Black’s Law Dictionary one can research what particular words mean in the practice of law. Reasonable suspicion, probable cause, jury nullification, etc can be understood by layman; otherwise a policeman could not arrest someone for a crime and write the changing documents with the elements to reach probable cause for indictment. I was taught in grad school, the difference between average people and bright people was not whether average people could learn something. But bright people just learn faster, which would be an advantage in multi discipline learning. John Mark is very important because he is explaining the concepts of propertarianism in the language of the everyday person and they get it. When we want to impress each other with how smart we are we use words (big) which are not normally in the other guy’s lexicon. Want reach the masses, you have use words out of their dictionary. They will get it, tit for tat.
-
Christians Want to Be Woo’ed.
Apr 15, 2020, 5:33 PM
—“Christians want to be woo’ed…the congregation is referred to as female for a good reason. If you don’t woo them by speaking to them in the grammars they are accustomed to–supernaturalism, childlike storytelling (parables), and the language of blind faith–they get put off, and like uppity women, they will walk away in a huff. The problem is, they aren’t some great prize to be won, they’re like all other Western females, hopelessly misguided, morally compromised ding bats with delusions of grandeur.”—Shannon Constantine
-
Christians Want to Be Woo’ed.
Apr 15, 2020, 5:33 PM
—“Christians want to be woo’ed…the congregation is referred to as female for a good reason. If you don’t woo them by speaking to them in the grammars they are accustomed to–supernaturalism, childlike storytelling (parables), and the language of blind faith–they get put off, and like uppity women, they will walk away in a huff. The problem is, they aren’t some great prize to be won, they’re like all other Western females, hopelessly misguided, morally compromised ding bats with delusions of grandeur.”—Shannon Constantine
-
Reconstitution of Sentences
Apr 18, 2020, 12:34 PM –QUESTION– Curt; in the paragraph:
—Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism, are all attempts at deception by: (a) claiming european self determination (sovereignty, reciprocity), tripartism (military, legal-commercial), and religious(family-faithful), mediated by law, and limiting us to markets, so that we preserve natural selection by demonstrated behavior, and devoting the proceeds to the production of commons, thereby maintaining the health,prosperity, and wealth of the people, and their competitive advantage is oppression, when all other peoples that did not do so were mired in poverty and suffering.’—
Here, under (a), it says that Marxism is an attempt at deception by claiming European self-determination, tripartism and religious… (etc)Should that not read ‘undermining’, rather than claiming. They don’t claim those things, they undermine them.I don’t know if I’m missing something, here?It also says their competitive advantage is oppression? Technically aren’t the competitive advantages of the left AND right oppression? The left oppress the objectively strong, the right suppress (oppress) the objectively weak.I just want a little clarification here, that’s all. Thanks. –RESPONSE– Well you know, i) i write long complex sentences, including parentheticals and series, ii) I leave out what I consider extra words. And, that’s sometimes a burden. This comes from writing programming code, and it’s the combination of law, economics, programming, and the foundations of mathematics that let me develop P-law. So there is a high correlation between my sentence structure and programming code. In the four paragraphs below I’ve broken up the single paragraph into its constituent phrases and added back what I consider unnecessary terms in brackets [ ], resulting in
“…Claiming that (all this stuff) is oppression (by these people).”
“{(a) claiming [that] } … {european self determination (sovereignty, reciprocity), tripartism (military, legal-commercial), and religious(family-faithful), mediated by law, [that limits] us to markets, so that we preserve natural selection [ in markets that existed before them,] by individually demonstrated behavior, } … {and devoting the proceeds [of surpluses] to the production of commons, [instead of funding reproduction of additional non-contributors] thereby maintaining the health,prosperity, and wealth of the people [who are contributors], and their competitive advantage [against competing peoples]} … {is oppression [by the middle and ruling classes], when all other peoples that did not do so [preserve natural selection using markets] were mired in poverty and suffering.}’” in other words, productivity must stay ahead of reproduction. What I could have said is that: “Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism, are all attempts at deception by: (a) claiming they’re oppressed by ….” Or some variation thereof. -Cheers
—“Right wing – ensure productivity outpaces reproductivity, ensuring prosperity. Left wing – ensure reproductivity outpaces productivity, ensuring poverty (demand for redistribution).”—Scott De Warren
-
Reconstitution of Sentences
Apr 18, 2020, 12:34 PM –QUESTION– Curt; in the paragraph:
—Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism, are all attempts at deception by: (a) claiming european self determination (sovereignty, reciprocity), tripartism (military, legal-commercial), and religious(family-faithful), mediated by law, and limiting us to markets, so that we preserve natural selection by demonstrated behavior, and devoting the proceeds to the production of commons, thereby maintaining the health,prosperity, and wealth of the people, and their competitive advantage is oppression, when all other peoples that did not do so were mired in poverty and suffering.’—
Here, under (a), it says that Marxism is an attempt at deception by claiming European self-determination, tripartism and religious… (etc)Should that not read ‘undermining’, rather than claiming. They don’t claim those things, they undermine them.I don’t know if I’m missing something, here?It also says their competitive advantage is oppression? Technically aren’t the competitive advantages of the left AND right oppression? The left oppress the objectively strong, the right suppress (oppress) the objectively weak.I just want a little clarification here, that’s all. Thanks. –RESPONSE– Well you know, i) i write long complex sentences, including parentheticals and series, ii) I leave out what I consider extra words. And, that’s sometimes a burden. This comes from writing programming code, and it’s the combination of law, economics, programming, and the foundations of mathematics that let me develop P-law. So there is a high correlation between my sentence structure and programming code. In the four paragraphs below I’ve broken up the single paragraph into its constituent phrases and added back what I consider unnecessary terms in brackets [ ], resulting in
“…Claiming that (all this stuff) is oppression (by these people).”
“{(a) claiming [that] } … {european self determination (sovereignty, reciprocity), tripartism (military, legal-commercial), and religious(family-faithful), mediated by law, [that limits] us to markets, so that we preserve natural selection [ in markets that existed before them,] by individually demonstrated behavior, } … {and devoting the proceeds [of surpluses] to the production of commons, [instead of funding reproduction of additional non-contributors] thereby maintaining the health,prosperity, and wealth of the people [who are contributors], and their competitive advantage [against competing peoples]} … {is oppression [by the middle and ruling classes], when all other peoples that did not do so [preserve natural selection using markets] were mired in poverty and suffering.}’” in other words, productivity must stay ahead of reproduction. What I could have said is that: “Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism, are all attempts at deception by: (a) claiming they’re oppressed by ….” Or some variation thereof. -Cheers
—“Right wing – ensure productivity outpaces reproductivity, ensuring prosperity. Left wing – ensure reproductivity outpaces productivity, ensuring poverty (demand for redistribution).”—Scott De Warren
-
The Method – Communication
(the communication process epistemology)
-
The Method – Communication
(the communication process epistemology)
-
Yes. in That Sense, Wittgenstein Is Correct
Yes. in That Sense, Wittgenstein Is Correct https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/09/yes-in-that-sense-wittgenstein-is-correct/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-09 19:40:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259206557247639562
-
Yes. in That Sense, Wittgenstein Is Correct
Apr 25, 2020, 8:44 PM
—“Do you recommend a Wittgenstein approach, a la philosophy just being a misunderstanding of language?“—Caleb Stevenson
[C]orrect. I didn’t understand until I’d finished the grammars, and come to the same conclusion, but yes. he’s correct. Philosophy is either an error, a pseudoscience, or a deceit. If we instead say that we have a problem of continuously reorganizing our paradigms to accommodate new knowledge, and from that to develop new choices (tactics) of transcendence (evolution) then that is the place I see for philosophical inquiry. But truth is still a matter of law and its systems of measurement science and mathematics. All language consists of measurements. We can measure poorly or well.