Theme: Grammar

(FB 1544623589 Timestamp) PARSIMONY IS MORE WORK THAN IT SOUNDS: I DO THE BEST I CAN BUT THERE ARE LIMITS…. —Paraphrased: “I think Curt is more obscure than he needs to be, and we need to make his work accessible.”— Let me see if I can answer this objection because there is truth in it, but explanation to be had. I am working in public like a street smith. I do not claim to have an answer until I have an answer so to speak. I just work through the problems one at a time in a painfully organized fashion. I do this because I don’t have a classroom at a university to test my ideas on students in organized form. Nor is there a method of running tests on people better than working through problems together. As most know I understand that thing we call religion today, and I know how to repair the institution, but I am still working on the content of it. But I have followed this process across the intellectual spectrum. So I am WORKING with the online group. In the classes I will TEACH them. There is a difference between research and development (my online work) and teaching (book and courses). Now to answer the question: First, yes, I add a certain degree of inferential or deductive demand in those cases where direct statement would remove me from the platform. If I stated some things directly deplatforming would follow. Second is the Great Change i’m trying to force, and the vast difference in the shift from the ideal (meaning) to the real (testimony). And I am working on this Great Change as a means of creating the Law that would end the means by which my (our) people have been deceived by false promises, straw manning, sophism, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism. For example, this is a short version of the dependency chain I work with: |SPIKE| Demand for Acquisition > Evolutionary(Adaptive) Velocity > Agency > Operational Definitions > Series/Tables of Operational Definitions > Divisions of Labor > Equilibrations(Competitions, Markets) > Arguments > Aphorisms. I KNOW that chain of reasoning from physics through cognition. And so I defend that chain of reasoning from error. And I defend my words from others’ ‘cheats’ (descent in to ideal types and normative usage’) that is the reason for fuzzy deduction from fuzzy definitions: fuzzy (justificationary) thinking. There is no way to explain that to people in all its depth when everyone we know, solves for their current investment in the current frame. I write in sentences that are closer to software statements and mathematics than ordinary language, and because of that closer to latin grammar. In fact I have considered writing in a formal language like software, and tried it a few times, but this is what makes formal logic and symbolic mathematics inaccessible. I DO create a degree of inferential demand yes. I do this to prohibit MISINTERPRETATION. This is part of the ‘trick’. In other words, you will not undrestand incorrectly only correctly. In other words, you will either not understand or you will correctly intuit and eventually correctly understand. I create partial arguments, and work with themes right out in public. I run dozens or hundreds of tests with these arguments. Until I can distill their causal relations into operational definitions in series. (Produce a supply demand graph of multiple dimensions over time). And thien weave them into an historical explanation. And then reference them with aphorisms. Then I weave all these ideas together in different patterns to educate on the relations between phenomenon that appear unrelated, or which are artificially unrelated by the differences in nonsense language between the disciplines. I search for aphoristic form as the ‘index’, ‘end point’, or ‘entry point’ of an idea.. I think the combination of ‘memorable’ aphoristic form, use of series and equilibria, and the operational (software) form produce an incremental hierarchy that makes misinterpretation difficult. And I do so by a great deal of repetition so that the newbies who come along can learn, as the others have, by ‘drip-feeding’. The Web is a One Room School House (that frequently descends into a locker room). The hard part is the series of terms. Once you have that, you can largely understand it. I publish those series often. I have a glossary. Although once you have a series the glossary seems largely superfluous. So you find that (a) people with the requisite knowledge of multiple fields recognize it but struggle to use it – although you can see from the groups that spun off, that they could learn within a few months – but pursued more elitist (absolutist) objectives because of it; (b) people who intuit ‘something is right there’ work to obtain that knowledge, (c) as more people obtain that knowledge the community rate of understanding expands, and (d) people begin to develop interest simply because they see that others do – and this reduces my cost of educating others. Others are better suited to bring it to the masses than I am. And I have invested so heavily in training others (all of you) for this reason: both to reduce the burden on me, and to compensate for my inadequacy – and frankly, disinterest. I am extremely confident (frighteningly so) that can defeat any intellectual at my level that’s living. And I am keenly aware that it is those people I must defend against attacks from over time. And while I care deeply for, and enjoy the company of, I cannot however sufficiently empathize with the cognitive framework of those much further down the curve than I am, unless in a one-on-one conversation. I do not have their frame to work with. Nor the time and energy to retrain minds working entirely by habituation with limited understanding of what they do vs the possible alternatives that we all CAN do. Others gain their status and experience training those minds. And together we train a people. So it is quite possible that it can be done better. But this is the best I can do while trying to produce a formal law closed to interpretation and therefore abuse, while at the same time explaining the historical narrative of our people, restoring our people’s confidence in our civilization, providing a constitution that restores our civilization, a strategy and tactics for forcing its imposition, and creating a ‘college’ to institutionalize teaching it at some scale, prior to its gradual transformation into a religion. It is that ‘religion’ that will transform our people.

(FB 1544623589 Timestamp) PARSIMONY IS MORE WORK THAN IT SOUNDS: I DO THE BEST I CAN BUT THERE ARE LIMITS…. —Paraphrased: “I think Curt is more obscure than he needs to be, and we need to make his work accessible.”— Let me see if I can answer this objection because there is truth in it, but explanation to be had. I am working in public like a street smith. I do not claim to have an answer until I have an answer so to speak. I just work through the problems one at a time in a painfully organized fashion. I do this because I don’t have a classroom at a university to test my ideas on students in organized form. Nor is there a method of running tests on people better than working through problems together. As most know I understand that thing we call religion today, and I know how to repair the institution, but I am still working on the content of it. But I have followed this process across the intellectual spectrum. So I am WORKING with the online group. In the classes I will TEACH them. There is a difference between research and development (my online work) and teaching (book and courses). Now to answer the question: First, yes, I add a certain degree of inferential or deductive demand in those cases where direct statement would remove me from the platform. If I stated some things directly deplatforming would follow. Second is the Great Change i’m trying to force, and the vast difference in the shift from the ideal (meaning) to the real (testimony). And I am working on this Great Change as a means of creating the Law that would end the means by which my (our) people have been deceived by false promises, straw manning, sophism, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism. For example, this is a short version of the dependency chain I work with: |SPIKE| Demand for Acquisition > Evolutionary(Adaptive) Velocity > Agency > Operational Definitions > Series/Tables of Operational Definitions > Divisions of Labor > Equilibrations(Competitions, Markets) > Arguments > Aphorisms. I KNOW that chain of reasoning from physics through cognition. And so I defend that chain of reasoning from error. And I defend my words from others’ ‘cheats’ (descent in to ideal types and normative usage’) that is the reason for fuzzy deduction from fuzzy definitions: fuzzy (justificationary) thinking. There is no way to explain that to people in all its depth when everyone we know, solves for their current investment in the current frame. I write in sentences that are closer to software statements and mathematics than ordinary language, and because of that closer to latin grammar. In fact I have considered writing in a formal language like software, and tried it a few times, but this is what makes formal logic and symbolic mathematics inaccessible. I DO create a degree of inferential demand yes. I do this to prohibit MISINTERPRETATION. This is part of the ‘trick’. In other words, you will not undrestand incorrectly only correctly. In other words, you will either not understand or you will correctly intuit and eventually correctly understand. I create partial arguments, and work with themes right out in public. I run dozens or hundreds of tests with these arguments. Until I can distill their causal relations into operational definitions in series. (Produce a supply demand graph of multiple dimensions over time). And thien weave them into an historical explanation. And then reference them with aphorisms. Then I weave all these ideas together in different patterns to educate on the relations between phenomenon that appear unrelated, or which are artificially unrelated by the differences in nonsense language between the disciplines. I search for aphoristic form as the ‘index’, ‘end point’, or ‘entry point’ of an idea.. I think the combination of ‘memorable’ aphoristic form, use of series and equilibria, and the operational (software) form produce an incremental hierarchy that makes misinterpretation difficult. And I do so by a great deal of repetition so that the newbies who come along can learn, as the others have, by ‘drip-feeding’. The Web is a One Room School House (that frequently descends into a locker room). The hard part is the series of terms. Once you have that, you can largely understand it. I publish those series often. I have a glossary. Although once you have a series the glossary seems largely superfluous. So you find that (a) people with the requisite knowledge of multiple fields recognize it but struggle to use it – although you can see from the groups that spun off, that they could learn within a few months – but pursued more elitist (absolutist) objectives because of it; (b) people who intuit ‘something is right there’ work to obtain that knowledge, (c) as more people obtain that knowledge the community rate of understanding expands, and (d) people begin to develop interest simply because they see that others do – and this reduces my cost of educating others. Others are better suited to bring it to the masses than I am. And I have invested so heavily in training others (all of you) for this reason: both to reduce the burden on me, and to compensate for my inadequacy – and frankly, disinterest. I am extremely confident (frighteningly so) that can defeat any intellectual at my level that’s living. And I am keenly aware that it is those people I must defend against attacks from over time. And while I care deeply for, and enjoy the company of, I cannot however sufficiently empathize with the cognitive framework of those much further down the curve than I am, unless in a one-on-one conversation. I do not have their frame to work with. Nor the time and energy to retrain minds working entirely by habituation with limited understanding of what they do vs the possible alternatives that we all CAN do. Others gain their status and experience training those minds. And together we train a people. So it is quite possible that it can be done better. But this is the best I can do while trying to produce a formal law closed to interpretation and therefore abuse, while at the same time explaining the historical narrative of our people, restoring our people’s confidence in our civilization, providing a constitution that restores our civilization, a strategy and tactics for forcing its imposition, and creating a ‘college’ to institutionalize teaching it at some scale, prior to its gradual transformation into a religion. It is that ‘religion’ that will transform our people.