(FB 1542397477 Timestamp) MEME LINGO AS AN EXPRESSION OF ASPIRATIONS TO SPECIATE English has attained, in the post WWII world, the status of a lingua Franca, or trade/diplomatic language. There are sound economic rationale to have such a language, and historical rationale for that language to be English. Simply put, there are a host of transaction costs that can be minimized or avoided if we adopt a common language, for common purposes. But to those of us who speak English as a first language, there are a whole host of NEW transaction costs entailed both in being intelligible to foreigners and in foreigners being intelligible to us… Our language’s status as global lingua franca vastly aids and speeds the invasion and colonization of our lands. Our private thoughts and communications are readily understood by alien elements, at home and abroad. Our ability to discern ingroup from out is greatly degraded. Our ears are assailed by constant tirades of malicious, dishonest, out-group critique. For all of these reasons, and more, we are rapidly evolving our own non-mutually intelligible idioms, in the form of meme lingos filled with euphemisms, jargon, and inside jokes. And it’s not just us. My parents, who are still very much plugged into university-educated SWPL culture, have been adopting a progressively more idiosyncratic lexicon and usage my entire life, to the point that the way they talk, though still intelligible to me, sounds increasingly jarring and foreign (though it is no doubt soothing and familiar within their circles…) This process is being accelerated by, for example, internet censorship, as we are forced to innovate especially our expressions of derision faster than that can be identified, understood, and suppressed by the implaccable racial enemy. So my prediction is English will continue to variagate, into a standard “global” variety, and a bunch of regional and subcultural dialects, which will eventually become wholly unintelligible, separate, languages.
Theme: Grammar
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542847972 Timestamp) A metaphor is (exists as) that category of fiction called ‘analogy’, that serves as a method of suggestion, that like all analogies functions as a substitute for description when the audience lacks the direct experience (memories) to reconstruct the intended experience (meaning). We generally use the spectrum of analogies to transfer properties between cases. And therein lies the problem. The question is whether one is engaging the transfer of truths or falsehoods, and whether those falsehoods produce externalities that are positive or negative, either directly or cumulatively. The central problem arises because as suggestion increases vulnerability increases. The economics of meaning (neural economy) are such that reinforcement of false paradigms decreases future cost of paradigmatic expansion. Conversely, those same economics mean that reformation of or replacement of those paradigms is a huge cost. And must be (at least for volition to be rational) offset by some reward. For the professional liar or snake oil salesman or marketer, or politician, or philosopher, or priest, this threatens not only his cognitive malinvestment, but his means of obtaining attention, status, opportunity – and often, income.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542717535 Timestamp) ( In interviews, it takes me a while to understand the other person’s ‘frame’, so that I can match it without losing them. So when an interview or conversation starts, in the background, I’m trying to create a ‘plan’ of how to educate the other person. As I build up a bit of understanding, and build out that plan, I can intuit their frame and I can stop working so hard to self monitor my speech. So that’s when the conversation ‘gets going’. I mean, I have to create a chain of reasoning rather than oversimplify the ideas, since that’s a substantial part of the difference in my work. So I feel like I’m working pretty hard in these interviews because if I don’t then I almost always lose the interviewer and the audience. (And then Megan disciplines me for a few weeks…) I’m quite a bit different in person, or on stage because those problems are less challenging in those venues. )
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542847972 Timestamp) A metaphor is (exists as) that category of fiction called ‘analogy’, that serves as a method of suggestion, that like all analogies functions as a substitute for description when the audience lacks the direct experience (memories) to reconstruct the intended experience (meaning). We generally use the spectrum of analogies to transfer properties between cases. And therein lies the problem. The question is whether one is engaging the transfer of truths or falsehoods, and whether those falsehoods produce externalities that are positive or negative, either directly or cumulatively. The central problem arises because as suggestion increases vulnerability increases. The economics of meaning (neural economy) are such that reinforcement of false paradigms decreases future cost of paradigmatic expansion. Conversely, those same economics mean that reformation of or replacement of those paradigms is a huge cost. And must be (at least for volition to be rational) offset by some reward. For the professional liar or snake oil salesman or marketer, or politician, or philosopher, or priest, this threatens not only his cognitive malinvestment, but his means of obtaining attention, status, opportunity – and often, income.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542717535 Timestamp) ( In interviews, it takes me a while to understand the other person’s ‘frame’, so that I can match it without losing them. So when an interview or conversation starts, in the background, I’m trying to create a ‘plan’ of how to educate the other person. As I build up a bit of understanding, and build out that plan, I can intuit their frame and I can stop working so hard to self monitor my speech. So that’s when the conversation ‘gets going’. I mean, I have to create a chain of reasoning rather than oversimplify the ideas, since that’s a substantial part of the difference in my work. So I feel like I’m working pretty hard in these interviews because if I don’t then I almost always lose the interviewer and the audience. (And then Megan disciplines me for a few weeks…) I’m quite a bit different in person, or on stage because those problems are less challenging in those venues. )
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542998602 Timestamp) SPECTRUM OF TESTIMONIES (TRUTH) (Nutshell version of Testimonialism) [T]AUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. [A]NALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). [I]DEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) [T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. [H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. [D]emonstrated Preference: â Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements [O]pinion: (justificationism) â a justified uncritical statement given the limits of oneâs knowledge about external questions. [P]osition: (criticism) â a theoretical statement that survives oneâs available criticisms about external questions. [P]reference (rational expression) : a justification of oneâs biases (wants). [I]ntuition: (sentimental expression) â an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors). DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR TESTIMONY (TRUTH) [D]ue Diligence necessary for Warranty that our Testimony is Truthful. 1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent? 2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency? 3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence. 4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such? 5) Is it limited? Do you know itâs boundaries (falsification) 6) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?) 7) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?) D]EMAND for TRUTH: True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship True enough for me to feel good about myself. True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. WARRANTY (‘SKIN IN THE GAME’) Your ability to warranty is limited to that for which you can perform restitution. So, completing the cycle with Demand, your ability to perform restitution determines the depth of and limit of that which you can testify to. TRUTH IS A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1542998602 Timestamp) SPECTRUM OF TESTIMONIES (TRUTH) (Nutshell version of Testimonialism) [T]AUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. [A]NALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). [I]DEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) [T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. [H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. [D]emonstrated Preference: â Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements [O]pinion: (justificationism) â a justified uncritical statement given the limits of oneâs knowledge about external questions. [P]osition: (criticism) â a theoretical statement that survives oneâs available criticisms about external questions. [P]reference (rational expression) : a justification of oneâs biases (wants). [I]ntuition: (sentimental expression) â an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors). DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR TESTIMONY (TRUTH) [D]ue Diligence necessary for Warranty that our Testimony is Truthful. 1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent? 2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency? 3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence. 4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such? 5) Is it limited? Do you know itâs boundaries (falsification) 6) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?) 7) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?) D]EMAND for TRUTH: True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship True enough for me to feel good about myself. True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. WARRANTY (‘SKIN IN THE GAME’) Your ability to warranty is limited to that for which you can perform restitution. So, completing the cycle with Demand, your ability to perform restitution determines the depth of and limit of that which you can testify to. TRUTH IS A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543082573 Timestamp) Seriously. I mean. You don’t really ‘get it’ until you practice it a bit. But most of the problem with argument is lacking definitions. And only definitions in series eliminate conflation and therefore the misrepresentation of meaning.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543084404 Timestamp) I use a large vocabulary, but the number of definitions-in-series I rely upon is far smaller than it appears. Memorizing them is not all that difficult. It’s understanding how to use them in argument without relying on your past ‘fuzzy use of terms’ that’s hard.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543082573 Timestamp) Seriously. I mean. You don’t really ‘get it’ until you practice it a bit. But most of the problem with argument is lacking definitions. And only definitions in series eliminate conflation and therefore the misrepresentation of meaning.