Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • Good Example (Godel, Chomsky)

    —“Not quite, as Godel presented a mathematical model of this phenomenon. You cannot reduce this to mere positivistic linguistics. On which point, are you not assuming Chomsky’s universal grammar with your definition of grammar? If so, this has been shown to be unempirical.”—

    I didn’t say anything like that. I’m saying that he’s correct. I haven’t met anyone other than the author of the best book on the subject that understands the limit of Godel’s argument: (a) we identify new constant relations (experiences) (b) we invent new references (c) we invent new paradigms (d) we require grammars to talk about them (e) we can make ungrammatical statements. Godel said it. Turing said it. Kripke said it. So there is no closure to logic without appeal to the operational, empirical, limits and completeness, and even then there is only closure on falsification not justification. THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE IN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY: There is nothing positivistic in P. It’s purely falsificationary. Either it survives adversarial competition by the terms stated in testimonialism or it doesn’t. If more than one does, then we just don’t know and nothing else can be said. In general, i have found that the first and most significant hurdle that people have trouble with – at least those not educated in the sciences – is that all propositions are contingent and all truth propositions are achieved by falsification. And P articulates the METHOD for universal falsification. ==== Afterward: Chomsky was trying to bring Turing to language. His original paper is simply pulling Turing into language. Chomsky’s contribution – from my understanding – is correctly stating that: (a) the brain produces experience by continuous recursive disambiguation. (b) linguistic thought consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. (c) grammar regardless of language consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. (d) language serves as a system of measurement for thought – albeit we use many different paradigms (metaphysics) within each human language, and these paradigms vary according to the correspondent vs the three non-correspondent (fictionalisms). (e) there appear to be higher demands on cognition for higher levels of thought. And we should expect aliens if there are any to use simpler or more complex grammatical structures given their abilities.

  • Good Example (Godel, Chomsky)

    —“Not quite, as Godel presented a mathematical model of this phenomenon. You cannot reduce this to mere positivistic linguistics. On which point, are you not assuming Chomsky’s universal grammar with your definition of grammar? If so, this has been shown to be unempirical.”—

    I didn’t say anything like that. I’m saying that he’s correct. I haven’t met anyone other than the author of the best book on the subject that understands the limit of Godel’s argument: (a) we identify new constant relations (experiences) (b) we invent new references (c) we invent new paradigms (d) we require grammars to talk about them (e) we can make ungrammatical statements. Godel said it. Turing said it. Kripke said it. So there is no closure to logic without appeal to the operational, empirical, limits and completeness, and even then there is only closure on falsification not justification. THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE IN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY: There is nothing positivistic in P. It’s purely falsificationary. Either it survives adversarial competition by the terms stated in testimonialism or it doesn’t. If more than one does, then we just don’t know and nothing else can be said. In general, i have found that the first and most significant hurdle that people have trouble with – at least those not educated in the sciences – is that all propositions are contingent and all truth propositions are achieved by falsification. And P articulates the METHOD for universal falsification. ==== Afterward: Chomsky was trying to bring Turing to language. His original paper is simply pulling Turing into language. Chomsky’s contribution – from my understanding – is correctly stating that: (a) the brain produces experience by continuous recursive disambiguation. (b) linguistic thought consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. (c) grammar regardless of language consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. (d) language serves as a system of measurement for thought – albeit we use many different paradigms (metaphysics) within each human language, and these paradigms vary according to the correspondent vs the three non-correspondent (fictionalisms). (e) there appear to be higher demands on cognition for higher levels of thought. And we should expect aliens if there are any to use simpler or more complex grammatical structures given their abilities.

  • Criticizing and Reforming “logos”

    [I] disagree with every use of Logos I’ve ever seen. As far as I know it’s original use meant ‘order identifiable and explicable through reason‘. Which doesn’t tell us anything, unless we have some claim on the truth or falsehood of it. Instead, civilizations evolve strategies (group competitive strategies), and persist them through metaphysical (unstated, presumed, unconscious) premises(laws of nature), and paradigms (plots), advanced by archetypes (characters) that anthropomorphize (mirror and amplify psychological or behavioral traits), which recursively reinforce the group strategy as if it is a law of nature. For this reason I argue that metaphysics as a discipline ‘doesn’t exist’ so to speak and that there is only one testifiable answer to existence (realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, rational choice, reciprocity, transcendence) and that all else is fiction(parable, myth, literature) or fictionalism (theology, sophistry, pseudoscience) that either mirrors or does not mirror that most parsimonious testimony and strategy. Man must act. To act he must remember. With memory he must predict futures to choose from to act upon. To choose from those futures he must reason. To continuously improve his choices continuously reducing costs, he must improve his reason. To reason at any scale other than the trivial requires forms of categorizing, organizing, predicting, and calculating. Language allows us to calculate increasing complexity. Cooperation lets us produce disproportionate returns on our actions. Cooperation on increasingly complex production requires collective ends within which to discover cooperative means. Narratives allow us to calculate collective means of cooperation within complex social groups. Complex social groups using the same narratives make the majority of tie-breaking decisions in favor of the group strategy. It is the countless decisions we make in favor of the group strategy when it costs little or nothing to do so, or at least the not-prohibitive to do so, that produce our group strategy more than does any organized and intentional production of commons. So I don’t use “logos” because of it’s nonsense connotations. Instead I create an operational description of the world and therefore continue my war on nonsense terms from history that were invented to wow nonsensical ignorant people into the pretense that some presumed good was in fact true as well as presumed good. See what I did there? 😉 10John Ma

  • Criticizing and Reforming “logos”

    [I] disagree with every use of Logos I’ve ever seen. As far as I know it’s original use meant ‘order identifiable and explicable through reason‘. Which doesn’t tell us anything, unless we have some claim on the truth or falsehood of it. Instead, civilizations evolve strategies (group competitive strategies), and persist them through metaphysical (unstated, presumed, unconscious) premises(laws of nature), and paradigms (plots), advanced by archetypes (characters) that anthropomorphize (mirror and amplify psychological or behavioral traits), which recursively reinforce the group strategy as if it is a law of nature. For this reason I argue that metaphysics as a discipline ‘doesn’t exist’ so to speak and that there is only one testifiable answer to existence (realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, rational choice, reciprocity, transcendence) and that all else is fiction(parable, myth, literature) or fictionalism (theology, sophistry, pseudoscience) that either mirrors or does not mirror that most parsimonious testimony and strategy. Man must act. To act he must remember. With memory he must predict futures to choose from to act upon. To choose from those futures he must reason. To continuously improve his choices continuously reducing costs, he must improve his reason. To reason at any scale other than the trivial requires forms of categorizing, organizing, predicting, and calculating. Language allows us to calculate increasing complexity. Cooperation lets us produce disproportionate returns on our actions. Cooperation on increasingly complex production requires collective ends within which to discover cooperative means. Narratives allow us to calculate collective means of cooperation within complex social groups. Complex social groups using the same narratives make the majority of tie-breaking decisions in favor of the group strategy. It is the countless decisions we make in favor of the group strategy when it costs little or nothing to do so, or at least the not-prohibitive to do so, that produce our group strategy more than does any organized and intentional production of commons. So I don’t use “logos” because of it’s nonsense connotations. Instead I create an operational description of the world and therefore continue my war on nonsense terms from history that were invented to wow nonsensical ignorant people into the pretense that some presumed good was in fact true as well as presumed good. See what I did there? 😉 10John Ma

  • Simplified Map of The Grammars

    Simplified Map of The Grammars https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/simplified-map-of-the-grammars/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 21:39:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232419802620350464

  • Simplified Map of The Grammars

    [H]ow do we demarcate math, science, law, economics, history, philosophy, literature, mythology, and theology? (Best diagram I can do with unformatted text) ANALOGY AND CONFLATION ^ | … INFLATION | … … Literature …-> Mythology …-> [Theology] . … Essay … Philosophy … [Sophistry] . Law ->Economics ->History ->[Deceit] |->[FICTIONALISMS| . … Science …-> Technology …-> [Pseudoscience] . … … Mathematics …-> Logic …-> [illogical] | | … DEFLATION v MEASUREMENT AND DISAMBIGUATION As far as I know this diagram cannot be false.

  • Simplified Map of The Grammars

    [H]ow do we demarcate math, science, law, economics, history, philosophy, literature, mythology, and theology? (Best diagram I can do with unformatted text) ANALOGY AND CONFLATION ^ | … INFLATION | … … Literature …-> Mythology …-> [Theology] . … Essay … Philosophy … [Sophistry] . Law ->Economics ->History ->[Deceit] |->[FICTIONALISMS| . … Science …-> Technology …-> [Pseudoscience] . … … Mathematics …-> Logic …-> [illogical] | | … DEFLATION v MEASUREMENT AND DISAMBIGUATION As far as I know this diagram cannot be false.

  • Simple Deep Understanding of Operational Language

    Simple Deep Understanding of Operational Language https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/simple-deep-understanding-of-operational-language/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 20:17:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232399360698261505

  • Simple Deep Understanding of Operational Language

    (core) (operational language) (or, why you don’t get it at first) Jason asks, “is this sentence correct ePrime?” We probably need to stop using the ePrime reference and simply teach people the steps to transforming fuzzy intuitive language to very clear operational language. The first step is eliminating the Copula (the connector): the verb to-be. This connector says “imply the connection” it does not state the connection. This is how ‘suggestion’ (deceit) is inserted into our otherwise very precise, english language. It’s the basis of all sophism. The second step, which may be necessary to complete the first step requires starting sentences with the subject rather than the actor – and this is what’s probably causing your struggle. P and ePrime ask you to think in terms of actor rather than subject. To put the actor before the subject in composing your “episode”. Thinking in, writing in, speaking in actors, adds a computational cycle, because the more advanced our thinking the more we’re thinking about subjects rather than actors. And the more ‘generalized’ our statement – which means the more masculine and analytic – the more the subject is the basis for context and the less the actor is the basis for content. So yes, operational language is slightly more burdensome, because it is more precise – at least until you habituate it. The Example: –“With the ability to protect it with violent defense, exercised at will, on an individual and group level, “— Change to: —At an individual or group level, [we / they] [can / develop the ability to] protect [it / or restate subject] with violent defense, exercised at will.”— Phrase: 1 – actor 2 – acted upon 3 – consequence So: 1 – Repeat with Collection of Phrases. 2- Producing a Complete sentence. 3- That explicitly states the COMPLETE transformation (Transaction) In other worlds:

    • Actor, Operation, Subject: “John threw the ball (to mark who caught it).”
    • Subject, Actor, Operation: “The ball john threw (to mark who caught it.)”

    and not: Language in operational terms is an accounting system That’s the secret of operational language “full accounting of changes in state”. Phrase (debit) Journal Entry , Phrase (credit) Journal Entry Sentence = Ledger Entry. Paragraph = Income Statement Story = Balance Sheet If you begin to see ‘the grammars’ in everything you will finally understand why P is so powerful … and it will, at some point, horrify you with wonder at it all. Language is a means of measurement. Arithmetic is a very precise language Accounting is just a very precise language. Geometry is another precise language Programming is another precise language P-Law is another precise language P-Testimony is the most precise language possible All language functions as a system of measurement using measurements provided by the human body. and accounting of changes in state in that measurement system. Why? Because the brain does nothing other than detect and predict, changes in state. We can either account well(operational language), or account poorly(ordinary language), or account deceptively (postmodern/feminist language) I hope this helps because it is the summary of the meaning of operational prose. ==== attn: Bill Joslin

  • Simple Deep Understanding of Operational Language

    (core) (operational language) (or, why you don’t get it at first) Jason asks, “is this sentence correct ePrime?” We probably need to stop using the ePrime reference and simply teach people the steps to transforming fuzzy intuitive language to very clear operational language. The first step is eliminating the Copula (the connector): the verb to-be. This connector says “imply the connection” it does not state the connection. This is how ‘suggestion’ (deceit) is inserted into our otherwise very precise, english language. It’s the basis of all sophism. The second step, which may be necessary to complete the first step requires starting sentences with the subject rather than the actor – and this is what’s probably causing your struggle. P and ePrime ask you to think in terms of actor rather than subject. To put the actor before the subject in composing your “episode”. Thinking in, writing in, speaking in actors, adds a computational cycle, because the more advanced our thinking the more we’re thinking about subjects rather than actors. And the more ‘generalized’ our statement – which means the more masculine and analytic – the more the subject is the basis for context and the less the actor is the basis for content. So yes, operational language is slightly more burdensome, because it is more precise – at least until you habituate it. The Example: –“With the ability to protect it with violent defense, exercised at will, on an individual and group level, “— Change to: —At an individual or group level, [we / they] [can / develop the ability to] protect [it / or restate subject] with violent defense, exercised at will.”— Phrase: 1 – actor 2 – acted upon 3 – consequence So: 1 – Repeat with Collection of Phrases. 2- Producing a Complete sentence. 3- That explicitly states the COMPLETE transformation (Transaction) In other worlds:

    • Actor, Operation, Subject: “John threw the ball (to mark who caught it).”
    • Subject, Actor, Operation: “The ball john threw (to mark who caught it.)”

    and not: Language in operational terms is an accounting system That’s the secret of operational language “full accounting of changes in state”. Phrase (debit) Journal Entry , Phrase (credit) Journal Entry Sentence = Ledger Entry. Paragraph = Income Statement Story = Balance Sheet If you begin to see ‘the grammars’ in everything you will finally understand why P is so powerful … and it will, at some point, horrify you with wonder at it all. Language is a means of measurement. Arithmetic is a very precise language Accounting is just a very precise language. Geometry is another precise language Programming is another precise language P-Law is another precise language P-Testimony is the most precise language possible All language functions as a system of measurement using measurements provided by the human body. and accounting of changes in state in that measurement system. Why? Because the brain does nothing other than detect and predict, changes in state. We can either account well(operational language), or account poorly(ordinary language), or account deceptively (postmodern/feminist language) I hope this helps because it is the summary of the meaning of operational prose. ==== attn: Bill Joslin