(FB 1545578821 Timestamp) Grammar: Rules of continuous disambiguation producing a well formed statement functioning as a series of transactions in a contract for meaning.
Theme: Grammar
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545578821 Timestamp) Grammar: Rules of continuous disambiguation producing a well formed statement functioning as a series of transactions in a contract for meaning.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545578598 Timestamp) I have to create a page for “Short Course in The Grammars” because I think that’s what’s missing from the ‘short courses’ that constitute the fundamentals of propertarian reasoning.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545578598 Timestamp) I have to create a page for “Short Course in The Grammars” because I think that’s what’s missing from the ‘short courses’ that constitute the fundamentals of propertarian reasoning.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545531036 Timestamp) NIT: English has 470k words in the OED, and estimates of 1M, if we account for synonyms and references rather than just spellings, with 1.2-1.5M if we account for what are two and three word terms in english but one word in a compound language like german, and then there is scientific terminology. English is a very low context high precision language especially suited for science and law. (Although german appears to be better for engineering because it evolved to be.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545531036 Timestamp) NIT: English has 470k words in the OED, and estimates of 1M, if we account for synonyms and references rather than just spellings, with 1.2-1.5M if we account for what are two and three word terms in english but one word in a compound language like german, and then there is scientific terminology. English is a very low context high precision language especially suited for science and law. (Although german appears to be better for engineering because it evolved to be.)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545926716 Timestamp) —“You are wedded to your jargon and do not care if the average person has a clue what you are talking about. Explaining it is fine, understand the jargon is another issue. You are in effect preaching to the converted.”—Steven Vandervelde (Criticizing John Mark and Propertarianism) We have been gaining more traction every year as the overton window moves closer to us. And enduring that same criticism all the while. Meanwhile we have produced a stream of people capable of practicing the discipline, in about the same time and effort required to get each level of university degree. We convert people daily. just ask them. John is the best at reaching larger numbers in a manner that they are comfortable with. This is neither my skill or ambition. We have planned on the emergence of talent as we evolve. it’s happening. It is a non trivial subject, as revolutionary in social science as as darwinism, larger than marxism/postmodernism, and cannot be understood any easier. While we can reduce marxism to class conflict and universal monopoly communism and reduce propertarianism to genetic conflict, conflict of civilizations, and universal market nationalism – polar opposites – that does not explain the vast difference between the underlying science and logic and method of propertarianism vs the lies, sophisms, and deceits, and denial, of marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and the abrahamic means of argumentative deceit. Revolution Comes
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545926716 Timestamp) —“You are wedded to your jargon and do not care if the average person has a clue what you are talking about. Explaining it is fine, understand the jargon is another issue. You are in effect preaching to the converted.”—Steven Vandervelde (Criticizing John Mark and Propertarianism) We have been gaining more traction every year as the overton window moves closer to us. And enduring that same criticism all the while. Meanwhile we have produced a stream of people capable of practicing the discipline, in about the same time and effort required to get each level of university degree. We convert people daily. just ask them. John is the best at reaching larger numbers in a manner that they are comfortable with. This is neither my skill or ambition. We have planned on the emergence of talent as we evolve. it’s happening. It is a non trivial subject, as revolutionary in social science as as darwinism, larger than marxism/postmodernism, and cannot be understood any easier. While we can reduce marxism to class conflict and universal monopoly communism and reduce propertarianism to genetic conflict, conflict of civilizations, and universal market nationalism – polar opposites – that does not explain the vast difference between the underlying science and logic and method of propertarianism vs the lies, sophisms, and deceits, and denial, of marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and the abrahamic means of argumentative deceit. Revolution Comes
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545925603 Timestamp) TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING One does not criticize either terminology or deviation from normative definitions, but instead, the precision of the definitions, such that we are free of opportunity for conflation, and subsequent error. Each field uses terminology particular to it, and propertarianism (law) uses universals (operational names in series) across all fields. In either case we define terms that eliminate the error and potential for error in colloquial speech (“ordinary language”). In other words no field is, can be, reduced to ordinary language without the introduction of the vast ignorance and error that separates ordinary language from scientific language. That is because the existence of, and market demands for science and scientific prose evolved precisely to compensate for the ignorance, error, bias, fictionalism, and deceit in ordinary language. And moreover, since propertarianism serves as the scientific language of social science – including history, economics, law, sociology, morality, ethics, psychology, and language itself – we are forcing into the political discourse the same adaptation as did the revolution in physical science: and with equally disruptive consequences to normative language, ideas, ideology, religion, and language of those disciplines. So the criticism that we should use the colloquial speech in our effort to change social sciences from sophisms and pseudoscience dependent upon intuition and projection, and monopoly and conformity, into a form of calculation as is used in the other sciences, and divisions of cognition and labor, and conditions of cooperation, competition, and war, is rather … ridiculous really. All systems of symbolic calculation whether they be the small difference between spoken language and written language, or great differences between spoken language, written language, arithmetic, accounting, geometry, the calculus, relativity, chemistry, biology, ecology, economics, require training. The great difference is that we are all more invested in our daily use of the psychological, social, and political, such that we defend those investments no matter how bad they are. Unfortunately the average idiot who will readily say he understands neither advanced mathematics, economics, or subatomic physics will not similarly question his understanding of ethics, morality, and politics – thereby demonstrating his lack of agency due to malinvestment and ignorance, and genetic, gender, class, cultural bias. Ergo, there is no shortcut to knowledge. Calculation is counter intuitive – particularly in intuitionistic subjects.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545925603 Timestamp) TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING One does not criticize either terminology or deviation from normative definitions, but instead, the precision of the definitions, such that we are free of opportunity for conflation, and subsequent error. Each field uses terminology particular to it, and propertarianism (law) uses universals (operational names in series) across all fields. In either case we define terms that eliminate the error and potential for error in colloquial speech (“ordinary language”). In other words no field is, can be, reduced to ordinary language without the introduction of the vast ignorance and error that separates ordinary language from scientific language. That is because the existence of, and market demands for science and scientific prose evolved precisely to compensate for the ignorance, error, bias, fictionalism, and deceit in ordinary language. And moreover, since propertarianism serves as the scientific language of social science – including history, economics, law, sociology, morality, ethics, psychology, and language itself – we are forcing into the political discourse the same adaptation as did the revolution in physical science: and with equally disruptive consequences to normative language, ideas, ideology, religion, and language of those disciplines. So the criticism that we should use the colloquial speech in our effort to change social sciences from sophisms and pseudoscience dependent upon intuition and projection, and monopoly and conformity, into a form of calculation as is used in the other sciences, and divisions of cognition and labor, and conditions of cooperation, competition, and war, is rather … ridiculous really. All systems of symbolic calculation whether they be the small difference between spoken language and written language, or great differences between spoken language, written language, arithmetic, accounting, geometry, the calculus, relativity, chemistry, biology, ecology, economics, require training. The great difference is that we are all more invested in our daily use of the psychological, social, and political, such that we defend those investments no matter how bad they are. Unfortunately the average idiot who will readily say he understands neither advanced mathematics, economics, or subatomic physics will not similarly question his understanding of ethics, morality, and politics – thereby demonstrating his lack of agency due to malinvestment and ignorance, and genetic, gender, class, cultural bias. Ergo, there is no shortcut to knowledge. Calculation is counter intuitive – particularly in intuitionistic subjects.