Understanding the Grammar Facility vs the Trivium (important) https://propertarianism.com/2019/09/20/understanding-the-grammar-facility-vs-the-trivium-important/
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-20 14:55:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1175061043707547648
Signs? AFAIK signs and symbols are a categorically under the grammar facility (ability). So it’s a question of whether you grasp logic (facility) grammar (continuous recursive disambiguation) and rhetoric (persuasion, argument) as a series from basic to intermediate to complex; and whether you separate sounds, actions, and marks (marks, pictures, symbols, glyphs), or categorize them as the same. Since the language facility is physically independent of sound, action, or mark, then whether we sound, act, or make marks is irrelevant. And the study of sounds, acts, and marks are just subsets, as is vocabulary. The interesting question is what limits to our calculation (reasoning) exist without language, drawing, and symbols to assist in categorization, composition, narration, and memory substitutes. SPECTRUM: 1. Sense(stimuli) … … Perception (composition) … … … Association 2. Logic Facility (constant relations) … … Imagination Facility (prediction) … … … Reason Facility (comparison, permutation) 3. Grammar facility (statements) … … Paradigms (‘metaphysics’, ‘dimensions’) … … Vocabulary … … … Sounds … … … Signs (acts, actions) … … … Marks (records) … … … … accidental … … … … intentional … … … … … Mark … … … … … Symbol … … … … … … Glyph … … … … … Pictogram … … … … … Picture … … … … … Picture Series … … … … … Animation 4. Communication Facility (“Language”) … Truths … … Logics (deflationary Grammars) … … Rhetoric (argumentative, persuasive Grammars) … Descriptions … … Testimony … Ordinary Language … Narrations (inflationary Grammars) … … Narrative (description) … … … Storytelling (loading, framing) … Deceits … … … Fictionalism … … … …. (idealism-> surrealism, … … … …. supernaturalism->occult, and … … … …. pseudoscience -> magic) … … … Obscurantism (Obscuring, Overloading) … … … … Propaganda … … … Misdirection (Deceit) … … … Fraud (for gain) … … … Harm (Evil, for harm regardless of gain) IN OTHER WORDS The cognitive grammaticists are mostly right.
Signs? AFAIK signs and symbols are a categorically under the grammar facility (ability). So it’s a question of whether you grasp logic (facility) grammar (continuous recursive disambiguation) and rhetoric (persuasion, argument) as a series from basic to intermediate to complex; and whether you separate sounds, actions, and marks (marks, pictures, symbols, glyphs), or categorize them as the same. Since the language facility is physically independent of sound, action, or mark, then whether we sound, act, or make marks is irrelevant. And the study of sounds, acts, and marks are just subsets, as is vocabulary. The interesting question is what limits to our calculation (reasoning) exist without language, drawing, and symbols to assist in categorization, composition, narration, and memory substitutes. SPECTRUM: 1. Sense(stimuli) … … Perception (composition) … … … Association 2. Logic Facility (constant relations) … … Imagination Facility (prediction) … … … Reason Facility (comparison, permutation) 3. Grammar facility (statements) … … Paradigms (‘metaphysics’, ‘dimensions’) … … Vocabulary … … … Sounds … … … Signs (acts, actions) … … … Marks (records) … … … … accidental … … … … intentional … … … … … Mark … … … … … Symbol … … … … … … Glyph … … … … … Pictogram … … … … … Picture … … … … … Picture Series … … … … … Animation 4. Communication Facility (“Language”) … Truths … … Logics (deflationary Grammars) … … Rhetoric (argumentative, persuasive Grammars) … Descriptions … … Testimony … Ordinary Language … Narrations (inflationary Grammars) … … Narrative (description) … … … Storytelling (loading, framing) … Deceits … … … Fictionalism … … … …. (idealism-> surrealism, … … … …. supernaturalism->occult, and … … … …. pseudoscience -> magic) … … … Obscurantism (Obscuring, Overloading) … … … … Propaganda … … … Misdirection (Deceit) … … … Fraud (for gain) … … … Harm (Evil, for harm regardless of gain) IN OTHER WORDS The cognitive grammaticists are mostly right.
You must have a reading comprehension problem? Tutors are available. Let’s diagram the sentence. What’s the subject? “Those who seek to destroy…” followed by a list of what they destroy. And, they may state the target of their destruction by via positiva or via negativa means.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 21:58:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174080122225385473
Reply addressees: @Brian_Alford @sarahfranks2120 @DineshDSouza
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174078841481875456
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/1174078841481875456
Words, like dna, lose their means of past construction, and retain only their current associations. Words are products manufactured in the moment. Are you trying to do what webster did, or the Egyptians did, and the chinese less so, and anchor words in time?
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 21:21:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173708556350251008
Reply addressees: @Semiogogue
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173707729510309889
IN REPLY TO:
@Semiogogue
@curtdoolittle No desire to unmake words. Only to show what they rest upon, their developmental antecedents, which are *persistent* and running, mostly unnoticed, as a parallel (and older) system: territorial, environmental and resource marks. Marks used to shape behavior.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173707729510309889
All language is reducible to analogy to experience and all experience communicable by language marginally indifferent. ie: measurements.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 21:17:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173707577944870912
Reply addressees: @Semiogogue
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173707173286879237
IN REPLY TO:
@Semiogogue
@curtdoolittle How are words ‘measurements’? Is a poem falsifiable?
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173707173286879237
The fact that we are not taught grammar as math and accounting, and math and accounting as grammar, so that we are easily misled by abrahamic, postmodern sophistry and deceit is just a matter of lacking education and incentives. (law as the incentive). You can’t unmake words.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 21:13:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173706492270317568
Reply addressees: @Semiogogue
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173706151533391872
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Semiogogue As far as I know all words are names, and all names are measurements, and all strings of names (phrases, sentences, paragraphs, descriptions, narratives) are collections of measurements that either balance or they don’t. (consistent, correspondent, operational and coherent)
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173706151533391872
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@Semiogogue As far as I know all words are names, and all names are measurements, and all strings of names (phrases, sentences, paragraphs, descriptions, narratives) are collections of measurements that either balance or they don’t. (consistent, correspondent, operational and coherent)
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173706151533391872
As far as I know all words are names, and all names are measurements, and all strings of names (phrases, sentences, paragraphs, descriptions, narratives) are collections of measurements that either balance or they don’t. (consistent, correspondent, operational and coherent)
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 21:12:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173706151533391872
Reply addressees: @Semiogogue
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173705655414403072
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Semiogogue Give me an example. Language, like violence can be used for true and reciprocal or false and irreciprocal ends. It is just a resource. So while I work on eliminating falsehood by law I am not sure what you are working on other than association, which is useless for operations.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173705655414403072
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@Semiogogue Give me an example. Language, like violence can be used for true and reciprocal or false and irreciprocal ends. It is just a resource. So while I work on eliminating falsehood by law I am not sure what you are working on other than association, which is useless for operations.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173705655414403072
Again, the purpose of speech is increase in disambiguation at cost of education whereas purpose of signs is broad association at cost of ambiguation. Active attempt by (((left))) to destroy western symbolism was successful.Not that Xianity is worth preserving, but archetypes are.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 20:58:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173702739077083141
Reply addressees: @Semiogogue
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173701851881070592
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Semiogogue Was just publishing my notes so that you would know I actually watched and thought about what you’d said. Good direction you’re going. Just not fond of trying to fit the frame rather than just sticking with the science. -cheers
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173701851881070592
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@Semiogogue Was just publishing my notes so that you would know I actually watched and thought about what you’d said. Good direction you’re going. Just not fond of trying to fit the frame rather than just sticking with the science. -cheers
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173701851881070592
… our glyphs all started out as inventory symbols in states that developed taxation. Be interesting if you tied this into how the left uses postmodern deceit (association) to create justificationary rather than consistent and correspondent paradigms. Anyway. Thanks., Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 06:46:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173488421299511297
Reply addressees: @Semiogogue
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173487991337209858
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Semiogogue Don’t know how much farther you’ve taken it but other than what’s stated above, certainly the right direction. Kind of would like to see the reverse presentation from biological ability to signs, and cultural differences in signs, particularly those of power, authority since …
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173487991337209858
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@Semiogogue Don’t know how much farther you’ve taken it but other than what’s stated above, certainly the right direction. Kind of would like to see the reverse presentation from biological ability to signs, and cultural differences in signs, particularly those of power, authority since …
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173487991337209858