Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • WRITING CHARACTERS: SORRY BUT YES, FEMALES AND MALES SPEAK (VERY) DIFFERENTLY. A

    WRITING CHARACTERS: SORRY BUT YES, FEMALES AND MALES SPEAK (VERY) DIFFERENTLY.

    And we speak differently whether or not members of the opposite sex are the the room or hearing distance. Both are more reserved in the presence of the opposite sex.

    So when writing characters, don’t force the audience out of suspension of disbelief.

    Laurelle asked: —“Why does Cane find it necessary, in a 2009 publication, to include an essay (within the chapter on J.D. Salinger) titled, “How to create female characters that readers remember?” I mean, really.’—

    Because men are as notoriously bad at creating female characters, as women are at creating men. Dialog that is counter to type (falling out of character) is one of the most common failings of authors, with misgendered speech the most common means of creating cardboard characters. Sensitivity tends to vary between male and female cognition with empathizing minds (dominantly female) tolerating it (not breaking suspension of disbelief), and systematizing minds (dominantly male) not tolerating it (breaking suspension of disbelief). In fact, it’s rather humorous that you even mention this because you’re demonstrating it. The most common demonstrably female cognitive bias is NAXALT (“not all x are like that”) meaning failure to grasp a distribution.

    Now all of us vary in our distribution of systematizing(autistic extreme) male bias and empathizing (psychotic extreme) female bias and we find masculinely biased females and femininely biased males. But that doesn’t change the fact that while some of us are insensitive (empathic) to patterns of behavior and some of us are extremely sensitive to behavioral patterns (systematizing), that the audience’s (marketplace’s) tolerance (willingness to keep investing time in the author’s work) is unaffected by one’s ability to construct a believable character that meets the target market’s demand for suspension of disbelief.

    Same is for age, same is for occupation, same is for socio-economic class. Same is for time period.

    BTW: Stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences, for obvious reasons: they’re continually tested empirically every day. Analytic males have the most accurate judgement of groups (patterns of action), and slightly sensitive females have the most accurate judgement of individuals (patterns of empathy(feeling)). This measure averages out at somewhere between .2 and .5. So it isn’t an extreme advantage or disadvantage. But it does matter. ie: If you write a romance novel it doesn’t matter as much as if you write a spy thriller.

    Hope this is useful for other writers.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 15:52:00 UTC

  • WRITING FICTION AND THE GRAMMARS I suppose I ought to point out that I treat fic

    WRITING FICTION AND THE GRAMMARS

    I suppose I ought to point out that I treat fiction as one of the “Grammars” in P, and I include the “archetypes, plots, and sentences” (the grammar(logic) of fiction) in the book. It might be helpful or disheartening to see all the forms of human communication reduced to algorithmic format, tied back to geometry, but it provides extraordinary clarity just like all the sciences help provide extraordinary clarity across phenomenon that otherwise appear incomprehensibly different.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 15:15:00 UTC

  • NO YOU DON”T HAVE WRITER’S BLOCK – HOW TO WRITE You can’t write from a feeling –

    NO YOU DON”T HAVE WRITER’S BLOCK – HOW TO WRITE

    You can’t write from a feeling – you can’t maintain it. You can’t write from inspiration – it will dissipate.

    OR….

    You can identify a question or a problem, or an argument (persuasion), and write a record of your exploration of it. You can identify a theory, and write your character’s investigation of it. You can identify a strategy given the history of “the technology of storytelling using archetypes, fundamental invariant human experiences, plot combinations, points of view (narrator, first, second), and past present and future contexts, to create a novelty, or an adaptation, revisiting the human experience to make an observation relevant to the day or era.” You can maintain your interests and attention mentally and emotionally.

    If you’re just writing from feeling or inspiration, thats why you’re failing yourself and your audience, because since you aren’t learning anything – neither are they. You have have something interesting in your head to write something interesting. The propensity to imagine is a talent, but writing is a craft like any other.

    Never confuse writing with therapy, nor work with avoidance, nor art with entertainment, nor sex with masturbation.

    Unless you’re being taught writing by the upper .01% you’re wasting your time. Writing is another form of engineering raised to an art. You can’t create an art without learning the science (engineering), the craft (practice) and the art (innovation).

    It’s not worth talented people’s time to help you find therapy, entertainment, or self gratification.

    My first ‘tough love’ review in art school was the question ‘why are you making art?’ I foolishly said “because it is fun” (meaning therapeutic). The response was “let me know when it’s work. bEcause then you’re learning, then you might have something to say. Until you’re working and working hard, you’re wasting our time, your time, and the audience’s time.”

    You can’t get a good education in the arts today. It’s just not possible. Even at Yale. Maybe CCAC. It’s almost impossible to get a good education today. You are a customer whose satisfaction is to be earned with the least conflict, not a student who the teachers and professors bear the burden to transforming into an innovator or aesthete.

    So you have to educate yourself, or find a group of mentors for whom your potential is worth their investment.

    Writers block doesn’t exist.

    A head empty of ideas because it’s not full of opportunities for free association exists.

    Creativity is not magic. It’s a discipline.

    Fill the shelves of your mind with related material.

    Go do something playful that doesn’t require you refill those shelves with something else.

    Take a shower. Go for a drive. Go for a walk. Go shopping. Anything that’s pleasingly stimulating for your senses but doesn’t occupy your brain.

    The answer will come to you when your bundles of neurons are done with their process of auto association.

    The brain accumulates novelties.

    So go research something somehow related to the characters or context or plot – and fill the shelves of your mind so it can use free association (auto-association) to identify and create novelties.

    If you’re sitting in a chair you’re just wasting your time.

    If you’re out and about and engaged in social activities, or any form of entertainment you’re wasting your time.

    Gather, observe people (what I do), Listen to people, play, exercise, relax, contemplate, and then try.

    If not, then repeat until it works.

    If you are exhausted by the topic start another one on a different topic. Doing so will cause you to auto-associate with your last topic or tory.

    There is nothing magic to this process.

    It’s just training yourself to insulate your five faculties from one another: senses, emotions, intuitions, reason, and actions, so that you use only use the one you need in the moment.

    For creativity you need your intuition: free association.

    Most memories are time and location dependent. Memories are saved by replaying three or more sequential episodes. When they are replaying (below your conscious threshold) they are auto-associating, and with every replay the breadth of auto association increases because neural connections increase. you are trying to let auto association not THINKING do the work for you until you find an idea. Then you think how to move your character or plot or argument from here to there.

    Creativity is just a discipline like meditation or stoicism or studying – a means of training your brain to delivery what your mind wants from it. Creative people just want novelty more than those less creative. They’re novelty junkies. But novelty requires new material to cause auto association. When I teach people anything from storytelling, to argument, to engineering, to web design to system architecture I say the same thing: go do some research on what others have done. you aren’t smarter or more creative than anyone else. You’re either identifying an opportunity to attract audience attention, and filling your mind with tools of auto-association, or you’re living under the illusion that you have some magic talent. You don’t ARt is just the generation of novelty in the craft you are experimenting upon by narrative, composition (aesthetics), materials, or technique. It doesn’t matter what art we talk about.

    A brain is a very big but very simple thing that does just one thing: It performs free (auto) associations until something is interesting enough to raise to your attention.

    You just have to train your mind to let your brain do its work.

    And then think (work) at getting from where you are to where you want to be given that interesting idea.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 13:30:00 UTC

  • “most philosophers are terrible writers”— Yep. Well, there are a number of goo

    —“most philosophers are terrible writers”—

    Yep.

    Well, there are a number of good reasons, the first of which is the attempt to construct a new paradigm using existing language – some of… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=489107218352840&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-21 00:35:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1186078577164468224

  • “most philosophers are terrible writers”— Yep. Well, there are a number of goo

    —“most philosophers are terrible writers”—

    Yep.

    Well, there are a number of good reasons, the first of which is the attempt to construct a new paradigm using existing language – some of which, like aristotle’s is clarifying, some of which like Heidegger is obscurant, and some of which like derrida is intentionally for the purpose of furthering deception.

    So between paradigmatic problems, novelty problems, and truth, analogy, poetic (nietzsche), fictionalization (Shopenhauer), and deceit (derrida, freud, adorno), and the academic failure to create a science out of formal logic (it’s all tautology so it doesn’t matter), then there is a lot of room for bad writing. lol 😉

    I think writing well is very hard. I’ve been writing profusely most of my life and I don’t think I was really worth reading until I was in my thirties (although my subject matter was part of the problem). My subject matter is still a problem… lol

    But writing characters, scenes and dialog using the various points of view, in various order, with various plots, with various characters … I mean, I think it’s really hard to write fiction well. I can’t bear reading much of it. I’ve nearly lost my ability to read fiction. (which apparently is more common than I thought)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-20 20:35:00 UTC

  • WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS TERRIFYING. IT’S NOT ME THAT DOESN’T UNDERSTAND. –“… (Do

    WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS TERRIFYING. IT’S NOT ME THAT DOESN’T UNDERSTAND.

    –“… (Doolittle) doesn’t understand language …”– A Right Wing Postmodernist

    The truth is not amenable to man, unless the truth provides him with agency. Others confuse truth and utility. The truth may be useful but it is also true and reciprocal. Many statements are useful but either false, ir-reciprocal, or both.

    AFAIK:

    1) All words are names (referrers).

    2) All Phrases Descriptions

    3) All sentences transactions

    4) All statements promises (This is not intuitive).

    5) All narrations, stories.

    6) All language measurement – that is reducible to analogy to experience – the question is, measurement of WHAT? (This is not intuitive)

    7) All meaning transferred by description within experience, and analogy to experience beyond experience.

    8) All meaning transferred by consent (understanding),

    9) All due diligence limits meaning.

    10) All paradigms of of communication deflationary(limited), descriptive(testimony), conflationary (loaded, framed), or inflationary(fictionally expanded), or fictionalism (sophism-idealism, pseudoscience-magic, supernatural-occult)

    11) All communications ostracization (departure), cooperation (reciprocal), or coercive (dishonest).

    12 ) (and here is the problem:) Audiences infantile, juvenile, ignorant, knowledgeable, skilled, or mastery.

    13) audience composed of dominantly empathic, dominantly normative, and dominantly empirical distributions; and all populations distributed between female herd consensus (preference), and male, pack, advantage (truth).

    14) and all attempts to organize those ranges of people by incentives either true or false, productive or parasitic, useful, not useful or harmful, and reciprocal, amoral, or irreciprocal,

    15) and all persuasion addressed to:

    i) an average of the audience,

    ii) an average of the audience’s influencers,

    iii) tailored to each audience’s influencers.

    I can go on in even more painful detail. This is just an overview. If you take a peek at the chart of the grammars, you’ll find innovative explanations that no other has provided.

    As I explained to someone else today, we may need supernatural theology, occult theology, secular theology, rational normative law, and empirical science to convince sufficient numbers of any given polity unless we follow the semitic strategy of infantilization of the cognition of the population, and the only slightly less infantilizing continental strategy – both seem to work. Just as rule of empirical law seems to work.

    The question is which of the suite of methods do we use to provide decidability in matters of undecidability, difference, dispute, or conflict, between these cognitively dominant paradigms (narratives). Because we very clearly can provide a host of deflationary, descriptive, conflationary, inflationary, and fictionalisms as means of communication between group members given their levels of infancy or maturity, and femininity or masculinity, ignorance or mastery.

    As to what I’m bringing to the history of thought – I’m bringing falsification to the abrahamic old world and abrahamic new world means of undermining our people with false promise, baiting into moral hazard, pipul and critique that we call islamism, jewish ethics, undermining our laws by design, undermining undermining the classes by marxism, undermining genders through feminism, undermining our identities, undermining truthful speech with postmodernism, and outright denial of individual gender, class, group and racial differences in order reverse our eugenic aesthetic cultural traditional civilizational institutional and technological achievements.

    And I now perfectly well that it is easy for you and others to criticize that which is imperfect, and to seek attention by doing so when as far as I know there is nothing on the table by anyone living that is other than an admission of failure to provide a solution to the problem other than another retreat into one of the systems of lying that you prefer because lying is a cheap means of agency over the weak.

    So as usual: “man up and show me something”, because ‘critique’ is just criticizing the real best vs the ideal perfect.

    “Ya’ll got nothing.” So to speak. Except a bunch of young-uns wanting a daddy in theological, secular theological or sophomoric prose.

    I have a simple message: “Here is a plan, this plan solves the problem regardless of which narrative you need given your cognitive dominances. It does not require we agree on how to go forward. It agrees on what we prohibit – the enemy. It preserves the western tradition of a competition between theological (lower classes), philosophical (middle classes), and empirical (upper classes). And prohibits a monopoly by any.”

    So Man up. Show up. And we win the ABILITY to pursue supernatural, philosophical-normative, and empirical means of advancing our interests in markets where we only need to agree on material trades.

    If that isn’t enough of an answer, every other possible answer will demonstrably fail given the existential classes and their frames, and their interests.

    So as far as I know your criticism isn’t really a criticism. It’s a demand to serve your PREFERENCE, because you can’t produce an equally competitive solution with equal potential for implementation. If you could, you’d compete and pay no attention to me.

    So your criticism is simply demonstration of the veracity of my work.

    We just keep growing slowly, year by year. And If we don’t succeed in creating the answer to the Frankfurt School then maybe someone else will.

    But so far ‘I got the only game in town’.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-18 19:13:00 UTC

  • EMPTY CRITICISMS TO OBSCURE UNSATISFIED DEMAND I NEVER SET OUT TO SUPPLY —“I t

    EMPTY CRITICISMS TO OBSCURE UNSATISFIED DEMAND I NEVER SET OUT TO SUPPLY

    —“I think Curt is working with an oversimplified, inaccurate theory of language, which leads to many liberal problems (Propertarianism as merely an intensification of liberalism), but I’ve always enjoyed some of his encyclopedic observations (because those are all necessarily written scientifically anyways, so there can be some compatibility).”—Imperius

    I am not working on an oversimplified and inaccurate theory of language, I am working on disambiguating language into causal axis (which I have done – as far as I know it’s complete). You are, as many right-wing-postmoderists are, correctly stating that language can via positiva be used to construct paradigms by narrative expression that are useful for various purposes in pseudoscientific, rational(continental sophomoric), literary (analogistic), mythological(heroic analogistic), supernatural prose.

    But that’ isn’t my objective (which you know). My objective is to write law that is decidable regardless of the USEFUL paradigms employed, by anyone whenever they are in CONFLICT. So the answer is, yes, P is so far flawless for purpose intended: decidability in matters of conflict. And since you and yours seek secular theology, the christians and muslims supernatural theology, and those like me seek scientific(Testimonial) decidability. So I’m writing a constitution serving all in the only language commensurable across all. I am not (as you wish I would) create a literary, philosophical, or theological religion dependent upon appeal to empathy(emotion) or sympathy(intuition), only reason.

    P provides no via positiva for any of the empathic, intuitionistic, or sympathetic market demands. It however does provide via negativa for juridical, political, and military, demands. So the best anyone can do (that I know of) is precisely what we have seen: rebel against science and reason without offering an alternative solution other than return to christian theology – which is impossible for all but those evolved to demand it.

    You want a continental secular theology, or perhaps occult theology, or perhaps supernatural theology that appeals to empathy and intuition. And if you want something like abrahamic religions or buddhism that is intentionally designed to circumvent criticism by science and reason, then go ahead and try to create one. But criticizing P while not producing an alternative, is simply unearned attention seeking on one hand and critique without competing alternative on the other. P is actionable. When I see some other centrist, libertarian, or conservative put out a work product that is other than pretense of knowledge and pretense of solution we can talk. Until then, there is no other new game in town.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 21:28:00 UTC

  • YES WE ARE SLOWLY CHANGING THE WORLD —“Reciprocity is EVERYWHERE the last few

    YES WE ARE SLOWLY CHANGING THE WORLD

    —“Reciprocity is EVERYWHERE the last few weeks. P is changing the language being used, which in turn will change the conversations being had, which creates different attitudes (frames), which leads to different actions being taken. This is how to change the world.”—Noah J Revoy

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-17 09:38:00 UTC

  • DISAMBIGUATING EQUALITY by Bill Joslin “Equality” is a term that’s been repeated

    DISAMBIGUATING EQUALITY

    by Bill Joslin

    “Equality” is a term that’s been repeatedly … gang-r@ped.

    CONTEXT ONE: BOOLEAN ASSESSMENT OF CATEGORICAL MEMBERSHIP.

    All players on the ice exist equally as “HOCKEY PLAYERS” bound by the same rules (membership). However, not all hockey players play hockey equally (qualitative assessment).

    CONTEXT TWO: ISONOMY

    State application of power will be applied to all by the same criteria (equality before the law)

    CONNECTION BETWEEN THESE TWO CONTEXTS:

    isonomy presumes that all who fall under the law exist, at the very minimum, as agents and thus, as agents, fall under the law.

    “Created Equally” was a notion by Americans adopted from their French influencers… the French ruin everything.

    —

    Definitions:

    … Isonomy: “equality before the law”

    … nomocracy: “rule of law”

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-12 17:25:00 UTC

  • THE MEANING OF ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL ”…Created equal …” is an incomplet

    THE MEANING OF ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL

    ”…Created equal …” is an incomplete sentence. In P this would have to be a complete sentence. “…. are created by nature, equal before the laws of nature and the natural law of reciprocity.” It’s just poetic. And they use property or tort rather than reciprocity.

    ” … associated …” doesn’t mean anything. I can gossip and spread a rumor about you, and cause people to associate you with something negative.

    “… aristocracy..” meant and means rule by the best, in other words, meritocracy, demonstrated by military defense, achievement of wealth, and contribution to the political government of the polity.

    Truth will bring meritocracy. If we produce families producing consistent meritocracy over generations we will produce nobility. If we produce a government by people from that nobility, we will produce an aristocracy. If that hierarchy of merit is defended by rule of law by sovereignty and reciprocity, by universal standing in matters of the commons, then it is very hard for aristocracy to survive without in fact surviving on meritocracy.

    Same goes for entrepreneurs today. The problem was removing the requirement that one demonstrate meritocracy in order to participate in government., We call this error the universal franchise. But that was a mistake. Furthermore, instead of the aristocracy producing policy and the government acting as a jury, and the bureaucracy enforcing it, we gave the decision to the government and removed the veto of the aristocracy.

    That’s the problem.

    Demonstrated excellence is the only test of merit.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-12 11:23:00 UTC