Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544980516 Timestamp) The Anglo, Italian, French, German, Polish-Ukrainian, Russian, Jewish, traditions all distribute emphasis on the Grammars differently. Every sub-civilization (culture) attempts to bring its GRAMMAR into a monopoly. Yet these grammars are biased for each group for reason: territory, competitors, rate of middle class development, and institutional history. I think this — comparative civilizations – is very difficult for people because we are trained INTUITIONISTICALLY not RATIONALLY.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544980516 Timestamp) The Anglo, Italian, French, German, Polish-Ukrainian, Russian, Jewish, traditions all distribute emphasis on the Grammars differently. Every sub-civilization (culture) attempts to bring its GRAMMAR into a monopoly. Yet these grammars are biased for each group for reason: territory, competitors, rate of middle class development, and institutional history. I think this — comparative civilizations – is very difficult for people because we are trained INTUITIONISTICALLY not RATIONALLY.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545229339 Timestamp) أنا أسف. لا أستطيع ترجمة هذه الكلمات إلى العربية. من الصعب للغاية ترجمة المفردات مع الاحتفاظ بمعنى النص. سلام IS PROPERTARIANISM SOMEHOW CONSERVATISM? The term “propertarian” refers to a ‘criticism’ of libertarians, rule-of-law advocates, ’empiricists’, and ‘materialists’, made in the mid-twentieth century. So I intentionally ‘appropriated’ the criticism ‘propertarian’ as a definition: ‘propertarianism’. All propertarianism is reducible to is a demand for individual Sovereignty, which requires Rule of Law, which then requires, truth, duty, reciprocity, and property. Which then requires markets in everything. Which includes courts that resolve differences empirically, by demanding truth, reciprocity, and property. Leaving the ‘preferential and good’ to the individual sovereign’s choice. This “Sovereignty” or “Sovereigntarianism” results in western hierarchical (market) Aristocracy (monarchy, aristocracy, nobility, burgher, craftsman, laborer, serf, slave, and ‘wild man’) and the institutions of an independent judiciary, a monarch as a judge of last resort, a jury, or’ thang’ or senate or parliament, or multiple houses of parliament, and a militia. So yes, Propertarianism consists of the previously unwritten philosophy of (traditional) western civilization. And as such it consists of libertarian(intellectual), classical liberal(political), and conservative (military). And as such, yes it is a ‘conservative’ (aristocratic) philosophy.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545229339 Timestamp) أنا أسف. لا أستطيع ترجمة هذه الكلمات إلى العربية. من الصعب للغاية ترجمة المفردات مع الاحتفاظ بمعنى النص. سلام IS PROPERTARIANISM SOMEHOW CONSERVATISM? The term “propertarian” refers to a ‘criticism’ of libertarians, rule-of-law advocates, ’empiricists’, and ‘materialists’, made in the mid-twentieth century. So I intentionally ‘appropriated’ the criticism ‘propertarian’ as a definition: ‘propertarianism’. All propertarianism is reducible to is a demand for individual Sovereignty, which requires Rule of Law, which then requires, truth, duty, reciprocity, and property. Which then requires markets in everything. Which includes courts that resolve differences empirically, by demanding truth, reciprocity, and property. Leaving the ‘preferential and good’ to the individual sovereign’s choice. This “Sovereignty” or “Sovereigntarianism” results in western hierarchical (market) Aristocracy (monarchy, aristocracy, nobility, burgher, craftsman, laborer, serf, slave, and ‘wild man’) and the institutions of an independent judiciary, a monarch as a judge of last resort, a jury, or’ thang’ or senate or parliament, or multiple houses of parliament, and a militia. So yes, Propertarianism consists of the previously unwritten philosophy of (traditional) western civilization. And as such it consists of libertarian(intellectual), classical liberal(political), and conservative (military). And as such, yes it is a ‘conservative’ (aristocratic) philosophy.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545407885 Timestamp) “GETTING IT- IT’S MOSTLY THE GRAMMARS” by A Friend. Hey! I thought about what made it ‘click’ for me. Here’s the result: “Let me try to identify things that would have made it faster: 1) Vocabulary. That would have been the biggest barrier to entry for me. What is fictionalism? What is operationalism? Largely graspable. Once this is clear I don’t see anything blocking the understand of the grammars. 2) I should have focused less on your facebook posts (until I got the grammars). I think I should have went straight to the website and find the Core of propertarianism. I avoided the core too much. I’m high on openness so the posts are pretty cool because there is so much to unpack and to learn from, and I could just dive inside. It’s nice to have something to grapple my mind with that can last longer that a few weeks. 3) Writing about it and isolating the core earlier (I think going to the overview that Eli Harman put out helped). So I started to say “I need to identify the Core and write about the definitions of the concepts in the core to really appropriate them as my own”. To do that I isolated mainly testimonialism and the tests of consistency. 4) I saw a post on the website about natural law and stating basically how you should talk and the vocabulary to use. That subject was didn’t take me very long by comparison. To summarize, it would have been way faster for me to say: Here are the key concepts (fictionalism, operationalism, testimonialism, the tests of consistency). Here are the definitions of this terms. Here is what you can do with it. Here is how you can do it (the grammars). Go in the world and use it. I couldn’t understand it when you said, “it is taking so long to look through everything again”. Now, I’m like “Ooooooh shit. Okay. I get it. I get how big this project is if you need to look at everything. Damn. Good job man.” Now I also understand that you use this Grammar and Vocabulary, and then you test what results they produce on facebook. You experiment with them on facebook. BIG LESSON I think if I would have understand how important are the grammars, I would have gone straight for it until I got it. Then it is a matter of investing the time to apply it.” (CD: edited for clarity)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545407885 Timestamp) “GETTING IT- IT’S MOSTLY THE GRAMMARS” by A Friend. Hey! I thought about what made it ‘click’ for me. Here’s the result: “Let me try to identify things that would have made it faster: 1) Vocabulary. That would have been the biggest barrier to entry for me. What is fictionalism? What is operationalism? Largely graspable. Once this is clear I don’t see anything blocking the understand of the grammars. 2) I should have focused less on your facebook posts (until I got the grammars). I think I should have went straight to the website and find the Core of propertarianism. I avoided the core too much. I’m high on openness so the posts are pretty cool because there is so much to unpack and to learn from, and I could just dive inside. It’s nice to have something to grapple my mind with that can last longer that a few weeks. 3) Writing about it and isolating the core earlier (I think going to the overview that Eli Harman put out helped). So I started to say “I need to identify the Core and write about the definitions of the concepts in the core to really appropriate them as my own”. To do that I isolated mainly testimonialism and the tests of consistency. 4) I saw a post on the website about natural law and stating basically how you should talk and the vocabulary to use. That subject was didn’t take me very long by comparison. To summarize, it would have been way faster for me to say: Here are the key concepts (fictionalism, operationalism, testimonialism, the tests of consistency). Here are the definitions of this terms. Here is what you can do with it. Here is how you can do it (the grammars). Go in the world and use it. I couldn’t understand it when you said, “it is taking so long to look through everything again”. Now, I’m like “Ooooooh shit. Okay. I get it. I get how big this project is if you need to look at everything. Damn. Good job man.” Now I also understand that you use this Grammar and Vocabulary, and then you test what results they produce on facebook. You experiment with them on facebook. BIG LESSON I think if I would have understand how important are the grammars, I would have gone straight for it until I got it. Then it is a matter of investing the time to apply it.” (CD: edited for clarity)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545396786 Timestamp) GENERATIVE GRAMMAR SOPHISTS ARE NEO ABRAHAMISTS (((yes))) 1) Generative Grammar refers to the theory that we are born with an innate capacity for producing speech, according to some rules or patterns, and that all languages evolve from this innate ability. (Ai would say serialization of information into streams of … 2) … continuously disambiguating symbols (phonemes) is a limit of neural economy – particularly short term memory. Opponents to generative grammar don’t use AI examples, they use studies out outliers and their answer reflects the AI: that it is simply a product of …. 3) … the limits of sense perception (Homunculus), and the limits of information processing ability – particularly integration. 4) Generative Anthropology refers to the theory that the history of human culture is a genetic or “generative” development stemming from the development of language rather than language assists in the distribution of processing power calculation and falsifiability, and that … 5) … all social language is merely an act of negotiating cooperation, fraud, and deceit in the furtherance of dividing labor, processing power, calculation, and FALSIFIABILITY OR UNFALSIFIABILITY. In other words, that language assists in the negotiating distributed … 6) … computation, valuation, and action (or prohibiting, computation, valuation, and action) is not something open to dispute. Nor is the great leap forward provided by the singularity of development of language in the division of sense, perception, memory, and cognition. 7) The technical debate is over whether there is an innate facility for language or it is simply a function of increased neural capacity and density given our rather rare capacity for complex movement whether limbs, fingers, lips, throat, or even control over our breathing. 8) However, this has nothing to do with and is merely an EXCUSE for Gans’ writing and the scope of the GA writing available, and the GA Blog for example, consists of little more than the ‘astrology and numerology of speech’ and simply a revision of the sophism of abrahamic and .. 10) … platonic, speech. While we find mythological speech in hinduism, and we find idealism in Sinic philosophy and religion, and we find pseudoscientific speech in buddhism, and Legal speech in Aristotelianism – if not all european folk language – we do not find them … 11) … conflated into argument until semitic abrahamic speech, and the incorporation of semitic abrahamic speech into western discourse under the christian theologian attempts to reconcile european truth and semitic lie. Wisdom was not Argument employed as ‘truth’- just wisdom. 12) so the question is, why is it that the anglos and scandinavians retain western truth, germans resist restoring it to german, french have abandoned it at least in parisian education, and the jews and muslims have done everything in their intellectual and cultural power… 13) … to preserve sophism, despite the fact that jews contributed nothing to history other than sophisms, and that muslims have destroyed (culturally and genetically) every great people of the ancient world. And the reason is very simple: INTROSPECTION, SOPHISM, … 14) … and CONFIRMATION and DECEIT are cheaper than investigation, falsification, and action in the real world. In other words, why lie EXCEPT to entice people into moral hazard? The answer is simple: there isn’t any reason except competence at coercion and deceit. Why Josh and Tom have trouble understanding this rather obvious dichotomy between truth/error/lies is INCENTIVE, is evidence of their justification of desirable, convenient, or utilitarian lying. End Abrahamic Supernaturalism, Sophism and Pseudoscience forever: NO MORE LIES. It’s one thing to use violence or shame against fraud and deceit, and quite another to use violence or deceit as a means of criticizing truth. Science is the universal language of truth,and operations its grammar of measurement. To restore the west,truth is enough. No More Lies. It’s bad enough we have left wing liars taking advantage of women and the underclass, but it’s hard to understand why there are those of you who want to take advantage of lost, underachieving young man and throw them in the degenerative maelstrom with the women and fools. —@TrueDilTom: Curt I see how you could think that given Chomsky’s “Generative Grammar”, but theyre different things. GA sees neuro-structural explanations of culture as having little room for non-instinctive abstraction to account for the arbitrariness of language. There is no science envy.”— Um. What science? There isn’t any science behind GA. It’s just Gans, who is a career postmodernist, doing exactly what I said he is. THERE ISN’T ANY SCIENCE. The structure of language is determined by analogies to experience (the homunculus) and the recursive depth of memory. There is nothing to understand. GA is just postmodern Social Construction of Reality with Chomsky added to convert a sophism into a pseudoscience. Josh has intellectual penis envy, which is why he pisses on others and pursues nonsense rather than producing intellectual works. The fact that we forecast a combination of real world and imaginary (fictional) models is simply our ability (or inability to resist) conflation of the imagined and the real. People need frames to calculate action. They can have a mixture of false, analogistic, and true frames.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545396786 Timestamp) GENERATIVE GRAMMAR SOPHISTS ARE NEO ABRAHAMISTS (((yes))) 1) Generative Grammar refers to the theory that we are born with an innate capacity for producing speech, according to some rules or patterns, and that all languages evolve from this innate ability. (Ai would say serialization of information into streams of … 2) … continuously disambiguating symbols (phonemes) is a limit of neural economy – particularly short term memory. Opponents to generative grammar don’t use AI examples, they use studies out outliers and their answer reflects the AI: that it is simply a product of …. 3) … the limits of sense perception (Homunculus), and the limits of information processing ability – particularly integration. 4) Generative Anthropology refers to the theory that the history of human culture is a genetic or “generative” development stemming from the development of language rather than language assists in the distribution of processing power calculation and falsifiability, and that … 5) … all social language is merely an act of negotiating cooperation, fraud, and deceit in the furtherance of dividing labor, processing power, calculation, and FALSIFIABILITY OR UNFALSIFIABILITY. In other words, that language assists in the negotiating distributed … 6) … computation, valuation, and action (or prohibiting, computation, valuation, and action) is not something open to dispute. Nor is the great leap forward provided by the singularity of development of language in the division of sense, perception, memory, and cognition. 7) The technical debate is over whether there is an innate facility for language or it is simply a function of increased neural capacity and density given our rather rare capacity for complex movement whether limbs, fingers, lips, throat, or even control over our breathing. 8) However, this has nothing to do with and is merely an EXCUSE for Gans’ writing and the scope of the GA writing available, and the GA Blog for example, consists of little more than the ‘astrology and numerology of speech’ and simply a revision of the sophism of abrahamic and .. 10) … platonic, speech. While we find mythological speech in hinduism, and we find idealism in Sinic philosophy and religion, and we find pseudoscientific speech in buddhism, and Legal speech in Aristotelianism – if not all european folk language – we do not find them … 11) … conflated into argument until semitic abrahamic speech, and the incorporation of semitic abrahamic speech into western discourse under the christian theologian attempts to reconcile european truth and semitic lie. Wisdom was not Argument employed as ‘truth’- just wisdom. 12) so the question is, why is it that the anglos and scandinavians retain western truth, germans resist restoring it to german, french have abandoned it at least in parisian education, and the jews and muslims have done everything in their intellectual and cultural power… 13) … to preserve sophism, despite the fact that jews contributed nothing to history other than sophisms, and that muslims have destroyed (culturally and genetically) every great people of the ancient world. And the reason is very simple: INTROSPECTION, SOPHISM, … 14) … and CONFIRMATION and DECEIT are cheaper than investigation, falsification, and action in the real world. In other words, why lie EXCEPT to entice people into moral hazard? The answer is simple: there isn’t any reason except competence at coercion and deceit. Why Josh and Tom have trouble understanding this rather obvious dichotomy between truth/error/lies is INCENTIVE, is evidence of their justification of desirable, convenient, or utilitarian lying. End Abrahamic Supernaturalism, Sophism and Pseudoscience forever: NO MORE LIES. It’s one thing to use violence or shame against fraud and deceit, and quite another to use violence or deceit as a means of criticizing truth. Science is the universal language of truth,and operations its grammar of measurement. To restore the west,truth is enough. No More Lies. It’s bad enough we have left wing liars taking advantage of women and the underclass, but it’s hard to understand why there are those of you who want to take advantage of lost, underachieving young man and throw them in the degenerative maelstrom with the women and fools. —@TrueDilTom: Curt I see how you could think that given Chomsky’s “Generative Grammar”, but theyre different things. GA sees neuro-structural explanations of culture as having little room for non-instinctive abstraction to account for the arbitrariness of language. There is no science envy.”— Um. What science? There isn’t any science behind GA. It’s just Gans, who is a career postmodernist, doing exactly what I said he is. THERE ISN’T ANY SCIENCE. The structure of language is determined by analogies to experience (the homunculus) and the recursive depth of memory. There is nothing to understand. GA is just postmodern Social Construction of Reality with Chomsky added to convert a sophism into a pseudoscience. Josh has intellectual penis envy, which is why he pisses on others and pursues nonsense rather than producing intellectual works. The fact that we forecast a combination of real world and imaginary (fictional) models is simply our ability (or inability to resist) conflation of the imagined and the real. People need frames to calculate action. They can have a mixture of false, analogistic, and true frames.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545315514 Timestamp) THE DIFFERENCE IN GRAMMARS IS A DIFFERENCE IN METHOD BTW: Regarding Greg, Richard, (and many others): I respect both of them (and those less well known) and their heroic efforts – and I won’t speak other than in support of them. But I will ask you to notice in them the study of philosophy and their advocacy by moral and sentimental appeal to generate understanding and consent. The spectrum of argumentative methods: 1) Religion and Theology to agree on a means of resistance for the collective good. 2) Philosophy and Morality to create understanding and to obtain consent on a collective good. 3) Science, Economics, Law, and War to impose a collective good regardless of resistance, understanding, and consent. We are and always have been the minority. We drag mankind behind us on a heavy sled. There is no sovereignty by undrestanding or consent, only the organized application of violence to deny anyone and everyone the alternative. If they understand and consent all the better. But understanding an consent are not necessary. This is the difference in my message. War.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545315514 Timestamp) THE DIFFERENCE IN GRAMMARS IS A DIFFERENCE IN METHOD BTW: Regarding Greg, Richard, (and many others): I respect both of them (and those less well known) and their heroic efforts – and I won’t speak other than in support of them. But I will ask you to notice in them the study of philosophy and their advocacy by moral and sentimental appeal to generate understanding and consent. The spectrum of argumentative methods: 1) Religion and Theology to agree on a means of resistance for the collective good. 2) Philosophy and Morality to create understanding and to obtain consent on a collective good. 3) Science, Economics, Law, and War to impose a collective good regardless of resistance, understanding, and consent. We are and always have been the minority. We drag mankind behind us on a heavy sled. There is no sovereignty by undrestanding or consent, only the organized application of violence to deny anyone and everyone the alternative. If they understand and consent all the better. But understanding an consent are not necessary. This is the difference in my message. War.