Theme: Grammar

  • Why Learn the Grammars?

    [I]f you study math, programming, the physical sciences, economics, or law, you will notice the similarity, in that there are n-number of software design patterns at every level of complexity; n-number of physical laws at every level of complexity; there are n-number of economic ideas at every level of complexity; and n-number of properties of law at contract, jurisprudence, and state authority; and you learn the economic ideas by the association with the author, and the legal ideas by association with a case; the programming ideas by label, example or function, and the mathematic ideas at every increase in dimensions (shapes) by the most absurd archaic nonsense language humanly possible. These different disciplines only ‘seem’ dissimilar or complicated, but they are all reducible to a common paradigm (ontology) and terminology, which once understood is … profoundly enlightening. This is what The Grammars in Propertarianism explain. That there is a regular, obvious pattern to the available operations at every level of complexity, where a level is defined as the set of operations possible before a subsequent operation is possible. In other words, you can’t make a molecule without an element, or an element without an elementary particle, or an elementary particle without the elementary forces. This particular pattern will explain language to you in a way that will explain all languages to you whether that language is one we speak, or one consisting of operations possible in the physical, sentient, and social world.

  • Why Learn the Grammars?

    [I]f you study math, programming, the physical sciences, economics, or law, you will notice the similarity, in that there are n-number of software design patterns at every level of complexity; n-number of physical laws at every level of complexity; there are n-number of economic ideas at every level of complexity; and n-number of properties of law at contract, jurisprudence, and state authority; and you learn the economic ideas by the association with the author, and the legal ideas by association with a case; the programming ideas by label, example or function, and the mathematic ideas at every increase in dimensions (shapes) by the most absurd archaic nonsense language humanly possible. These different disciplines only ‘seem’ dissimilar or complicated, but they are all reducible to a common paradigm (ontology) and terminology, which once understood is … profoundly enlightening. This is what The Grammars in Propertarianism explain. That there is a regular, obvious pattern to the available operations at every level of complexity, where a level is defined as the set of operations possible before a subsequent operation is possible. In other words, you can’t make a molecule without an element, or an element without an elementary particle, or an elementary particle without the elementary forces. This particular pattern will explain language to you in a way that will explain all languages to you whether that language is one we speak, or one consisting of operations possible in the physical, sentient, and social world.

  • Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism

    Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/counsel-philosophy-vs-sophism/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 23:26:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179900576324358148

  • Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism

    COUNSEL: PHILOSOPHY VS SOPHISM [G]iven any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Example: Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil constant relations: 1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative 2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest 3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.) Most sophistry in philosophy consists of: 1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence; 3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; 4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more. ORIGINS Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics. Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority. The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.).

  • Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism

    COUNSEL: PHILOSOPHY VS SOPHISM [G]iven any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Example: Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil constant relations: 1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative 2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest 3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.) Most sophistry in philosophy consists of: 1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence; 3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; 4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more. ORIGINS Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics. Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority. The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.).

  • What is Enough?

    NO. LAW – A VIA NEGATIVA – IS NOT ENOUGH. BUT WHAT RELIGIOUS STRATEGY, NARRATIVE, GRAMMAR, AND DEBT ARE ENOUGH? (important) [O]f the spectrum of Grammars I know of, including but not limited to: Supernatural, Mythical, Literary, Ideal, Magical, Pseudoscientific, Fictional, Ordinary Language, Written Language, Testimonial Language, Legal, Economic, Mathematic, Economic (Models), Algorithms, Engineering, Medical Protocols, Accounting, Finance, Logic, Mathematics and Arithmetic: a) Both Law and Morality evidentially reflexive and coevolutionary not hierarchical. b) Compare: Commodity Money (Proper) and Fiat Money,Credit Money, Money Substitutes -vs- Law(proper), and Command, Legislation, Regulation, Arbitrary Ruling -vs- Morality (Proper), and Institutionalized Morality, Normative Morality, Individual Morality. …. and by disambiguation, question just which ‘law’ or ‘morality’ or ‘money’ one is talking about when one makes an argument about the SERIES’ of law, morality, or money. empirically speaking international law is reciprocity, including oath, truth, duty to perform. Because there are no other requirements between those who are neutral or enemies. While within a polity we are cooperating to produce a portfolio of rights(income, credit) and obligations(expense, debt) the disambiguation of which is beyond the abilities of ordinary people other than a vague sense of ‘proportionality’. c) People require a group strategy, and a means of reinforcing it a binding narrative for cognitive decidability (altruistic punishment, non conflict, cooperation, signaling). This binding narrative radically decreases the burden of intuitionistic calculation of trust and standardizes ethical(interpersonal) and moral (extrapersonal) permissible and impermissible display word and deed. Without these SYSTEMS OF MEASUREMENT they will continually conflict (as we see with ‘multiculturalism’ as a means of undermining government, culture, tradition, and civilization) and fracture into races, cults, tribes, and clans decreasing group competitive ability (survivability). d) As far as I know, Organized religion vs Traditional Religion, evolved to SEPARATE macro (Politically Organized) groups, so that they could separate and compete (Iranic vs Indo Iranic). In other words, just as warfare has moved from military to economic to religious to propaganda in the modern world, warfare moved from military to economic to religious in the age of Transformation. e) As far as I know Political Law versus Customary Law evolved in response to governance of heterogeneous people (Middle east), beginning with normalizing punishments to prevent retaliation cycles between clans and tribes with different traditional standards of punishment. In other words, we are more sensitive to differences in punishment (altruistic punishment, especially) than we are to the content of proscribed norms themselves. f) As far as I know Historical Mythology serves as mythos (binding narrative) for successful peoples Ancient Europeans and all East asians (and arguably egyptians). Given our new understanding of the origin of middle eastern religion as an evolution of the burial, and it’s nexus as a trade route between the continents, it is easier to understand how pilgrimage, heavens, supernaturalism and authoritarianism evolved in that region amid the continuous wars between so many non-kin. Both christianity and buddhism were forcibly imposed by the governments after multiple failures in order to create a docile populace. In other words, those who need false gods are those who have no worthy ancestors, and have not obtained sufficient control of territory via organization, economics, culture, tradition, and warfare to create an historical mythos and their binding narrative institutions, while those of us who have need no fictitious myths and their binding narrative institutions. g) So the question is that given the spectrum of inherited debt-respect from 1- nature, ancestor, hero, founder, nation, in a binding narrative, producing knowledge wisdom and correspondence to reality to 2- Idealism, Literary characters in Character and Role Archetypes and Anthropomorphic Archetypes, to 3- Fantastical, supernatural, non-rational, authoritarian, ignorance-inducing non-correspondence with and active denial of reality. h) And so Territorial, Political, Economic, Demographic, Genetic Differences all generate Demand for a Binding Literature of the WEAK, the Powerless, the ABLE, and the POWERFUL – but in no case does this appear to be other than a portfolio of literatures except islam and judaism. In western civilization we have, as most have, relied upon Our ancient Heathen myths (childhood, family), Traditional Myths, Political Religions (formal Myths), Law (social and economic rules), Literary (temporary myths), and Fashions (ever expiring myths). And in western civilization and to a lesser degree in eastern civilization we have done so. The major difference being that the southeast and east were not conquered by Semitic Heterogeneous Political Religions, and preserved their natural religion (and justifiably consider us foolish for ours). i) And I cannot tell the difference between the addiction response by a herd of people practicing ritualizing a falsehood despite reality, and a tribe of people and their addiction response TO ONE ANOTHER AND THEIR HISTORY. Other than … that drugs sedate us, and drugs that escape from reality are desirable even if destructive. j) As such I will continue my efforts to create the optimum Science, Law, Tradition, Religion for my people and mankind that are the least infected by falsehood and the production of submission, ignorance, vulnerability, and dysgenia. 😉 Do you see that it’s disambiguation and testimony I practice, and that the outcome of doing so is Natural Law – but what trades and portfolios we construct within that Natural Law’s requirement for reciprocity within the limits of proportionality are infinitely malleable.


    In response to: Culture Precedes Law by Troy Camplin https://medium.com/@troyc…/culture-precedes-law-183763eaa861

  • What is Enough?

    NO. LAW – A VIA NEGATIVA – IS NOT ENOUGH. BUT WHAT RELIGIOUS STRATEGY, NARRATIVE, GRAMMAR, AND DEBT ARE ENOUGH? (important) [O]f the spectrum of Grammars I know of, including but not limited to: Supernatural, Mythical, Literary, Ideal, Magical, Pseudoscientific, Fictional, Ordinary Language, Written Language, Testimonial Language, Legal, Economic, Mathematic, Economic (Models), Algorithms, Engineering, Medical Protocols, Accounting, Finance, Logic, Mathematics and Arithmetic: a) Both Law and Morality evidentially reflexive and coevolutionary not hierarchical. b) Compare: Commodity Money (Proper) and Fiat Money,Credit Money, Money Substitutes -vs- Law(proper), and Command, Legislation, Regulation, Arbitrary Ruling -vs- Morality (Proper), and Institutionalized Morality, Normative Morality, Individual Morality. …. and by disambiguation, question just which ‘law’ or ‘morality’ or ‘money’ one is talking about when one makes an argument about the SERIES’ of law, morality, or money. empirically speaking international law is reciprocity, including oath, truth, duty to perform. Because there are no other requirements between those who are neutral or enemies. While within a polity we are cooperating to produce a portfolio of rights(income, credit) and obligations(expense, debt) the disambiguation of which is beyond the abilities of ordinary people other than a vague sense of ‘proportionality’. c) People require a group strategy, and a means of reinforcing it a binding narrative for cognitive decidability (altruistic punishment, non conflict, cooperation, signaling). This binding narrative radically decreases the burden of intuitionistic calculation of trust and standardizes ethical(interpersonal) and moral (extrapersonal) permissible and impermissible display word and deed. Without these SYSTEMS OF MEASUREMENT they will continually conflict (as we see with ‘multiculturalism’ as a means of undermining government, culture, tradition, and civilization) and fracture into races, cults, tribes, and clans decreasing group competitive ability (survivability). d) As far as I know, Organized religion vs Traditional Religion, evolved to SEPARATE macro (Politically Organized) groups, so that they could separate and compete (Iranic vs Indo Iranic). In other words, just as warfare has moved from military to economic to religious to propaganda in the modern world, warfare moved from military to economic to religious in the age of Transformation. e) As far as I know Political Law versus Customary Law evolved in response to governance of heterogeneous people (Middle east), beginning with normalizing punishments to prevent retaliation cycles between clans and tribes with different traditional standards of punishment. In other words, we are more sensitive to differences in punishment (altruistic punishment, especially) than we are to the content of proscribed norms themselves. f) As far as I know Historical Mythology serves as mythos (binding narrative) for successful peoples Ancient Europeans and all East asians (and arguably egyptians). Given our new understanding of the origin of middle eastern religion as an evolution of the burial, and it’s nexus as a trade route between the continents, it is easier to understand how pilgrimage, heavens, supernaturalism and authoritarianism evolved in that region amid the continuous wars between so many non-kin. Both christianity and buddhism were forcibly imposed by the governments after multiple failures in order to create a docile populace. In other words, those who need false gods are those who have no worthy ancestors, and have not obtained sufficient control of territory via organization, economics, culture, tradition, and warfare to create an historical mythos and their binding narrative institutions, while those of us who have need no fictitious myths and their binding narrative institutions. g) So the question is that given the spectrum of inherited debt-respect from 1- nature, ancestor, hero, founder, nation, in a binding narrative, producing knowledge wisdom and correspondence to reality to 2- Idealism, Literary characters in Character and Role Archetypes and Anthropomorphic Archetypes, to 3- Fantastical, supernatural, non-rational, authoritarian, ignorance-inducing non-correspondence with and active denial of reality. h) And so Territorial, Political, Economic, Demographic, Genetic Differences all generate Demand for a Binding Literature of the WEAK, the Powerless, the ABLE, and the POWERFUL – but in no case does this appear to be other than a portfolio of literatures except islam and judaism. In western civilization we have, as most have, relied upon Our ancient Heathen myths (childhood, family), Traditional Myths, Political Religions (formal Myths), Law (social and economic rules), Literary (temporary myths), and Fashions (ever expiring myths). And in western civilization and to a lesser degree in eastern civilization we have done so. The major difference being that the southeast and east were not conquered by Semitic Heterogeneous Political Religions, and preserved their natural religion (and justifiably consider us foolish for ours). i) And I cannot tell the difference between the addiction response by a herd of people practicing ritualizing a falsehood despite reality, and a tribe of people and their addiction response TO ONE ANOTHER AND THEIR HISTORY. Other than … that drugs sedate us, and drugs that escape from reality are desirable even if destructive. j) As such I will continue my efforts to create the optimum Science, Law, Tradition, Religion for my people and mankind that are the least infected by falsehood and the production of submission, ignorance, vulnerability, and dysgenia. 😉 Do you see that it’s disambiguation and testimony I practice, and that the outcome of doing so is Natural Law – but what trades and portfolios we construct within that Natural Law’s requirement for reciprocity within the limits of proportionality are infinitely malleable.


    In response to: Culture Precedes Law by Troy Camplin https://medium.com/@troyc…/culture-precedes-law-183763eaa861

  • Perceivable Dimensions

    Again. Dimensions.

    1. Logic = Constant relations of sense perceptions.
    2. Identity =(NAMES)

    – Internally consistent, not inconsistent, sets of properties – Constant Relations between collections of properties.

    1. Sets = (LANGUAGE)
    2. Science = (OBSERVATIONS)
    3. Operational = (ACTIONS)

    – Internally consistent (constant, consistent relations), Relations, , .) – Constant relations between collections of references – Empirical, externally correspondent, correlative – Constant Relations between collections of references and reality – Operationally consistent or operationally possible Causation – Constant Relations between collections of references, actions, and reality in time.

    1. Rational (reasonable) = (RATIONAL INCENTIVE)
      (choice)
    2. Reciprocity = (RECIPROCAL INCENTIVES)
      (cooperation)

    This is the full set of dimensions of causality that humans can perceive and compare in order to decide. Each depends upon the one before it. From Eric Danelaw

  • Perceivable Dimensions

    Again. Dimensions.

    1. Logic = Constant relations of sense perceptions.
    2. Identity =(NAMES)

    – Internally consistent, not inconsistent, sets of properties – Constant Relations between collections of properties.

    1. Sets = (LANGUAGE)
    2. Science = (OBSERVATIONS)
    3. Operational = (ACTIONS)

    – Internally consistent (constant, consistent relations), Relations, , .) – Constant relations between collections of references – Empirical, externally correspondent, correlative – Constant Relations between collections of references and reality – Operationally consistent or operationally possible Causation – Constant Relations between collections of references, actions, and reality in time.

    1. Rational (reasonable) = (RATIONAL INCENTIVE)
      (choice)
    2. Reciprocity = (RECIPROCAL INCENTIVES)
      (cooperation)

    This is the full set of dimensions of causality that humans can perceive and compare in order to decide. Each depends upon the one before it. From Eric Danelaw

  • PILPUL AND DERIVATIVES ARE FRAMED AS, BUT NOT CONTINGENT OR CAUSAL. —“A though

    PILPUL AND DERIVATIVES ARE FRAMED AS, BUT NOT CONTINGENT OR CAUSAL.

    —“A thought on grammars of ambiguation – pilpul and derivative ideologies base on primacy of linguistics would be… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=476931476237081&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-02 23:29:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179538829822353409