Theme: Grammar

  • 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 grammars that are neither contingent nor causal, but are framed to be so?”—Bill Joslin

    Smart. Correct.

    — REGARDING —

    —“So it’s correct to call apriorism an ideal grammar, but not a formal grammar. Thankfully I finally know how to talk about the grammars of each incremental dimension… sigh. Mathematical grammars are not contingent because of constant relations. That’s their beauty. The problem is they’re non causal.Linguistic (Philosophical) grammars are contingent. That’s their weakness.Operational grammars are not contingent. And they’re causal. That’s their beauty.”—Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-02 19:28:00 UTC

  • (using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of con

    (using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’.)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-01 15:31:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179056257501683713

    Reply addressees: @fryskefilosoof

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179056053885063168


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @fryskefilosoof 1. Returning violence is and act of reciprocity.
    2. Forcing Restitution and if necessary punishment (disincentive for repetition), restores reciprocity.
    3. Preemptive violence insures against ir-reciprocity.
    (Always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions.)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179056053885063168


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @fryskefilosoof 1. Returning violence is and act of reciprocity.
    2. Forcing Restitution and if necessary punishment (disincentive for repetition), restores reciprocity.
    3. Preemptive violence insures against ir-reciprocity.
    (Always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions.)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179056053885063168

  • COUNSEL: PHILOSOPHY VS SOPHISM Given any term, always use a series of at least 3

    COUNSEL: PHILOSOPHY VS SOPHISM

    Given 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.).


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-01 11:55:00 UTC

  • WHY LEARN THE GRAMMARS? If you study math, programming, the physical sciences, e

    WHY LEARN THE GRAMMARS?

    If 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.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-29 19:19:00 UTC

  • The question is only the precision of the measures. P is the most precise n-dime

    The question is only the precision of the measures.

    P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-28 12:26:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177922564758343680

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon @TheRajput8

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177922424291115008


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @LLaddon @TheRajput8 Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1177922424291115008


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @LLaddon @TheRajput8 Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1177922424291115008

  • Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambigu

    Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-28 12:26:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177922424291115008

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon @TheRajput8

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177921985508249600


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @LLaddon @TheRajput8 But that’s a great question because very few people have the insight to ask it. So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1177921985508249600


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @LLaddon @TheRajput8 But that’s a great question because very few people have the insight to ask it. So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1177921985508249600

  • Process:Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization. Ser

    Process:Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization. Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-28 12:22:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177921627633471488

    Reply addressees: @LLaddon @TheRajput8

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177920494227660800


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177920494227660800

  • In fact, (I think Eli Harman has done some of this) there is a small movement to

    In fact, (I think Eli Harman has done some of this) there is a small movement to restore english to its germanic roots by eliminating french, latin, and greek terms. (It sounds beautiful when you do). German has one weakness english doesn’t. Otherwise they’re beautiful together.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 20:29:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177681634902102017

    Reply addressees: @NoGuiltStoic @Ozpin_88 @roytapel @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177681206344900614


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @NoGuiltStoic @Ozpin_88 @roytapel @JohnMarkSays Nope. Our language and latin, both evolved from indo european. English is a (west) germanic language with verb order different from latin. We lost prefixes and suffixes during the various invasions and migrations. Retaining common german, political french, and intellectual latin.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1177681206344900614


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @NoGuiltStoic @Ozpin_88 @roytapel @JohnMarkSays Nope. Our language and latin, both evolved from indo european. English is a (west) germanic language with verb order different from latin. We lost prefixes and suffixes during the various invasions and migrations. Retaining common german, political french, and intellectual latin.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1177681206344900614

  • Nope. Our language and latin, both evolved from indo european. English is a (wes

    Nope. Our language and latin, both evolved from indo european. English is a (west) germanic language with verb order different from latin. We lost prefixes and suffixes during the various invasions and migrations. Retaining common german, political french, and intellectual latin.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-27 20:27:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177681206344900614

    Reply addressees: @NoGuiltStoic @Ozpin_88 @roytapel @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177680048075223042


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177680048075223042

  • Minor Update to The Grammars

    Minor Update to The Grammars https://propertarianism.com/2019/09/25/minor-update-to-the-grammars/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-25 15:16:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176878027076247552