(FB 1547270284 Timestamp) TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING worth repeating 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.
Theme: Grammar
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547270284 Timestamp) TERMINOLOGY: NO SHORTCUT TO UNDERSTANDING worth repeating 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 1547468764 Timestamp) WORDS IN RUSSIAN BUT NOT IN ENGLISH TELL US A LOT ABOUT RUSSIAN EMOTIONAL NORMATIVITY
- Poshlost
Russian-American writer Vladimir Nabokov, who lectured on Slavic Studies to students in America, admitted that he couldnât translate this word, which every Russian easily understands. - Nadryv
German Wikipedia has an entire article dedicated to the word nadryv (надÑÑв). This is a key concept in the writings of Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky. The word describes an uncontrollable emotional outburst, when a person releases intimate, deeply hidden feelings. - Khamstvo
Soviet émigré writer Sergei Dovlatov wrote about this phenomenon in the article “This Untranslatable Khamstvo,” commenting that “Khamstvo is nothing other than rudeness, arrogance and insolence multiplied by impunity.”
What is poshlost (поÑлоÑÑÑ)? Nabokov gives the following example: “Open any magazine and youâll certainly find something like this – a family just bought a radio (a car, a refrigerator, silverware, it doesn’t matter), and the mother is clapping her hands, mad with joy, the children gathered around her with their mouths agape; the baby and the dog are leaning towards the table on which the `idolâ has been hoisted⦠a bit to the side victoriously stands the father, the proud breadwinner. The intense “poshlosity” of such a scene comes not from the false exaggeration of the dignity of a particular useful object, but from the assumption that the greatest joy can be bought and that such a purchase ennobles the buyer.” “This word includes triviality, vulgarity, sexual promiscuity and soullessness,” added the late Professor Svetlana Boym from Harvard University. Moreover, Dostoevsky’s nadryv implies a situation in which the protagonist indulges in the thought that he can find in his soul something that may not even exist. That’s why the nadryv often expressed imaginary, excessively exaggerated and distorted feelings. One part of the novel, Brothers Karamazov, is called “Nadryvs.” In Dovlatov’s view, itâs with impunity that khamstvo (Ñ Ð°Ð¼ÑÑво) outright kills us. It’s impossible to fight it; you can only resign yourself to it. “I’ve lived in this mad, wonderful, horrifying New York for ten years and am amazed by the absence of khamstvo. Anything can happen to you here, but thereâs no khamstvo. You can be robbed but no one will shut the door in your face,” added the writer.
- Stushevatsya
Some linguists believe stushevatsya (ÑÑÑÑеваÑÑÑÑ) was introduced by Fyodor Dostoevsky, who used it for the first time in a figurative sense in his novella, The Double. This word means to be less noticeable, go to the background, lose an important role, noticeably leave the scene, become confused in an awkward or unexpected situation, become meek. Toska
This Russian word can be translated as “emotional pain,” or “melancholy,” but this does not transmit all of its depth. Vladimir Nabokov wrote that, “Not one word in English can transmit all the nuances of toska (ÑоÑка). This is a feeling of spiritual suffering without any particular reason. On a less dolorous level, itâs the indistinct pain of the soulâ¦vague anxiety, nostalgia, amorous longing.”Bytie
This word comes from the Russian byt'(to exist). In Russian-English dictionaries this philosophical concept is translated as “being.” However, bytie (бÑÑие) is not just life or existence, itâs the existence of an objective reality that is independent of human consciousness (cosmos, nature, matter).Bespredel
Eliot Borenstein, professor of Slavic Studies at New York University, explains that bespredel (беÑпÑедел) literally means “without restrictions or limits.” Translators often use “lawlessness” (bezzakonie). In Russian, however, the meaning of bespredel is much broader, and refers to the behavior of a person who violates not only the law, but also moral and social norms.Avos’
Itâs rather difficult to explain to people of other nationalities what this means. Interestingly, many people believe that avos’ (авоÑÑ) is the main Russian national trait. Hoping for the avos’ means doing something without planning, without putting in much effort, counting on success.Yurodivy
Yurodivy: Russian ‘Umberto Eco’ demystifies the Holy Fool Yurodivys (ÑÑодивÑе) in ancient Rus’ were people who voluntarily renounced earthly pleasures in the name of Christ. Such people looked like madmen, and led a wandering lifestyle with the aim of obtaining inner peace and defeating the root of all sin – pride. They were valued and were considered close to God. Their opinions and prophecies were taken into consideration and they were even feared.
- Podvig
This word is often translated into English as “feat” or “achievement,” but it has other meanings. Podvig (подвиг) is not just a result, or the achievement of an objective; itâs a brave and heroic act, an action performed in difficult circumstances. Russian literature often mentions military, civilian podvigs and even scientific podvigs. Moreover, this word is a synonym for selfless acts, for example, a podvig in the name of love.
- Poshlost
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547468764 Timestamp) WORDS IN RUSSIAN BUT NOT IN ENGLISH TELL US A LOT ABOUT RUSSIAN EMOTIONAL NORMATIVITY
- Poshlost
Russian-American writer Vladimir Nabokov, who lectured on Slavic Studies to students in America, admitted that he couldnât translate this word, which every Russian easily understands. - Nadryv
German Wikipedia has an entire article dedicated to the word nadryv (надÑÑв). This is a key concept in the writings of Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky. The word describes an uncontrollable emotional outburst, when a person releases intimate, deeply hidden feelings. - Khamstvo
Soviet émigré writer Sergei Dovlatov wrote about this phenomenon in the article “This Untranslatable Khamstvo,” commenting that “Khamstvo is nothing other than rudeness, arrogance and insolence multiplied by impunity.”
What is poshlost (поÑлоÑÑÑ)? Nabokov gives the following example: “Open any magazine and youâll certainly find something like this – a family just bought a radio (a car, a refrigerator, silverware, it doesn’t matter), and the mother is clapping her hands, mad with joy, the children gathered around her with their mouths agape; the baby and the dog are leaning towards the table on which the `idolâ has been hoisted⦠a bit to the side victoriously stands the father, the proud breadwinner. The intense “poshlosity” of such a scene comes not from the false exaggeration of the dignity of a particular useful object, but from the assumption that the greatest joy can be bought and that such a purchase ennobles the buyer.” “This word includes triviality, vulgarity, sexual promiscuity and soullessness,” added the late Professor Svetlana Boym from Harvard University. Moreover, Dostoevsky’s nadryv implies a situation in which the protagonist indulges in the thought that he can find in his soul something that may not even exist. That’s why the nadryv often expressed imaginary, excessively exaggerated and distorted feelings. One part of the novel, Brothers Karamazov, is called “Nadryvs.” In Dovlatov’s view, itâs with impunity that khamstvo (Ñ Ð°Ð¼ÑÑво) outright kills us. It’s impossible to fight it; you can only resign yourself to it. “I’ve lived in this mad, wonderful, horrifying New York for ten years and am amazed by the absence of khamstvo. Anything can happen to you here, but thereâs no khamstvo. You can be robbed but no one will shut the door in your face,” added the writer.
- Stushevatsya
Some linguists believe stushevatsya (ÑÑÑÑеваÑÑÑÑ) was introduced by Fyodor Dostoevsky, who used it for the first time in a figurative sense in his novella, The Double. This word means to be less noticeable, go to the background, lose an important role, noticeably leave the scene, become confused in an awkward or unexpected situation, become meek. Toska
This Russian word can be translated as “emotional pain,” or “melancholy,” but this does not transmit all of its depth. Vladimir Nabokov wrote that, “Not one word in English can transmit all the nuances of toska (ÑоÑка). This is a feeling of spiritual suffering without any particular reason. On a less dolorous level, itâs the indistinct pain of the soulâ¦vague anxiety, nostalgia, amorous longing.”Bytie
This word comes from the Russian byt'(to exist). In Russian-English dictionaries this philosophical concept is translated as “being.” However, bytie (бÑÑие) is not just life or existence, itâs the existence of an objective reality that is independent of human consciousness (cosmos, nature, matter).Bespredel
Eliot Borenstein, professor of Slavic Studies at New York University, explains that bespredel (беÑпÑедел) literally means “without restrictions or limits.” Translators often use “lawlessness” (bezzakonie). In Russian, however, the meaning of bespredel is much broader, and refers to the behavior of a person who violates not only the law, but also moral and social norms.Avos’
Itâs rather difficult to explain to people of other nationalities what this means. Interestingly, many people believe that avos’ (авоÑÑ) is the main Russian national trait. Hoping for the avos’ means doing something without planning, without putting in much effort, counting on success.Yurodivy
Yurodivy: Russian ‘Umberto Eco’ demystifies the Holy Fool Yurodivys (ÑÑодивÑе) in ancient Rus’ were people who voluntarily renounced earthly pleasures in the name of Christ. Such people looked like madmen, and led a wandering lifestyle with the aim of obtaining inner peace and defeating the root of all sin – pride. They were valued and were considered close to God. Their opinions and prophecies were taken into consideration and they were even feared.
- Podvig
This word is often translated into English as “feat” or “achievement,” but it has other meanings. Podvig (подвиг) is not just a result, or the achievement of an objective; itâs a brave and heroic act, an action performed in difficult circumstances. Russian literature often mentions military, civilian podvigs and even scientific podvigs. Moreover, this word is a synonym for selfless acts, for example, a podvig in the name of love.
- Poshlost
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1547577090 Timestamp) HOW CAN PEOPLE USING THE SAME METHOD MAKE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS? —“Iâve noticed some followers have slight disagreements. Is this because they are getting it wrong? Or what? Example, Iâve heard Eli explain that he disagrees that Christianity is the optimum cooperative strategy. I mean, either it is or isnât, right? How can different people using the method ever disagree or contradict?”– by Curtus Maximus Short answer: First, People who should know better, still get Darwin and Einstein wrong – every day. And second, we are all arguing a field of possibilities rather than just the central proposition – that field is a means of providing due diligence against your misunderstanding by deduction, inference, and free association. In other words we differ largely in which error we are trying to stop you from making (many), not in the central thesis (one). Long answer: we are in that phase where we are applying the method to everything, but have not yet covered all the cases nor examined the consequence of the application of our judgements. At this point we will naturally have some ‘calculating’ to do. In the example you gave, I say that christianity teaches (contains, not is) the optimum cooperative strategy WITHIN a group. This is just a general rule and it’s not possible to debate it. We can say that (a) it is a very bad way of teaching that rule, (b) teaching it that bad way produces terrible consequences, (c) teaching that rule without limiting to kin is suicidal. Eli is the most sophisticated person we have at the economic analysis of cooperative behaviors. There just isn’t anyone better at it. And he has such a head start that it will be hard for anyone to catch up with him. But, when he’s making those statements I don’t know the context so I don’t know which of the points (a,b,c) he’s making. Eli’s method is extremely pejorative. He uses that method to render extremely intolerant (weasel-proof) judgements because he’s not letting you come to your own ‘weasel-word’ conclusion. I tend to want you to come to your own conclusion so that you ‘own it’. So I will leave the doorway for weasel-words open in order to iteratively trap you so that you come to the conclusion on your own. (it’s socratic – and as you can see over the past few days, it’s what I’m doing with you.) Usually, when reading Eli, I can simply look at the context (argument he’s refuting) and define what he’s saying. But I don’t know if I’ve ever disagreed with him. It’s pretty hard to. So in the sense of judgement, Eli will give the LIMIT test of the argument. Where I will tend to describe the general rule. I suspect that any difference we have is in this difference between medians and limits. Bill will use a more sensitive approach. and if you watch john mark he’s probably becoming the best of us so far in completely answering the question. So you know, in ‘manly terms’ eli=well done, curt=medium, bill-medium rare, and John Mark = Rare. 😉
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548104523 Timestamp) SEE HOW THEY RUN. SECOND TODAY. Look at how they construct arguments in an attempt to preserve their comforts. —-“You still have to assume a framework for falsifying. If you don’t leave room for questioning said framework, it’s dogma. Is that not clear?”— Ben Quimby No it is not clear. logic is not dogma. justificationism is false and falsificationism is not. these are not open questions unless you find a means of opening them by falsifying falsificationism. An authority must command a dogma. Logic cannot be otherwise. Falsification cannot be otherwise. You can claim this is false somehow but defensive skepticism is just admission of failure to do so. —“To be fair, questioning doesn’t necessarily imply falsifying. Nobody wants to falsify logic, AFAIK; what they want is to “hint”, let’s say (b/c you can’t do this logically), that some truths, like logic itself, are meta-logical.”—Ben Quimby —“It’s not admissable, that’s true. And then, if they can’t testify to it, we have to resort to deciding on intent. That’s true. What a weird puzzle. I see both sides. Assuming there are such things as meta-logical truths, this would appear to throw a bit of a wrench in the whole prosecution of non-logical information thing. And you’re naturally worried about being consistent with what gets prosecuted. You can’t even argue that it’s worth sacrificing meta-logical truths, b/c your framework won’t even allow you to acknowledge them as such. And if it did, you might not make that argument. But as someone who can see these “truths”, at least provisionally, the answer here (cost-benefit analysis) is not at all clear to me.”—Ben Quimby “Define meta-logical truths” (There aren’t any) —-“[One can’t coherently define meta-coherence; that comes with the territory.] Take ‘change’ (process) for example. It’s not definable, it’s not falsifiable, and yet we don’t subordinate it to something lesser, like fiction. We acknowledge change as some kind of fact or truth, as something that “just is”, something that “can’t be otherwise”, and yet it hasn’t passed our formalized tests of truth.”— Ben Quimby :Meta-coherence” means intuitionistic, free-associations, not open to analysis. (There is nothing not open to analysis, only not open to testing.) To define change is very easy. Time=rate of entropy. Change is any perceivable difference in constant relations over time. That is what it means, and that is what it must mean, and that is what we are capable of percieving, because that is the only capacity of our neurons. —“Yeah, perception, difference, constancy, relations, time; more meta-analytical terms. They’re meaningful, no doubt; just not in a way we can reference concretely. As for neuronal capacities, I question whether we really know what we mean by that. At any rate, the point isn’t to debate this. The point is to test for the ability to step into a separate lens: Can you see what they see without interpreting via your current frame? Hence the “hard problem” question: Do you UNDERSTAND the hard problem as it is seen through the eyes of those who think it’s a valid problem? If you could show something like that, I think it would be extremely powerful. I look at things like this: If I can demonstrate comprehension of both my perspective and the other guy’s (on their terms), and they can only demonstrate comprehension of their own, then it’s more likely I hold the superior (more comprehensive) position. Anyways, I’m trying to get away from internet stuff these days. Yesterday was a spur of the moment type thing–a relapse, if you will. It shant happen again. Cheers.”— If i can demonstrate both but also the degree of falsity of both it is moel likely that the least false least fictional most parsimonious holds te superior more comprehensive position, The hardest part of each major revolution: reason, empiricism, science, darwinianism, and operationalism has been the recalcitrance of those invested in the comforting fictions that they hold dear. Testimonialism is a revolutionary as the revolutions in reason, empiricism, science, darwinianism, and operationalism. And like those who have malinvested in moralism, malinvested in scripturalism, malinvested in rationalism, the malinvestment is driven out of the market by superior investment. -Cheers 😉
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548349724 Timestamp) TERMINOLOGICAL SUBTLETY I use the spectra: Display (visible signals) … Word (sound/speech) … … Deed (action) Sense (stimuli) … Perception (stimuli with memory) … … Prediction (imagine) … … … Experience … … … … Memory (result) … … … … … Recursion … … … … … … Intuition … … … … … … … Free Association … … … … … … … … Thinking … … … … … … … … … Reasoning … … … … … … … … … … Calculating … … … … … … … … … … … Computing Imitation (physical) > … Empathy (emotional) > … … Sympathy (thought) >
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548349724 Timestamp) TERMINOLOGICAL SUBTLETY I use the spectra: Display (visible signals) … Word (sound/speech) … … Deed (action) Sense (stimuli) … Perception (stimuli with memory) … … Prediction (imagine) … … … Experience … … … … Memory (result) … … … … … Recursion … … … … … … Intuition … … … … … … … Free Association … … … … … … … … Thinking … … … … … … … … … Reasoning … … … … … … … … … … Calculating … … … … … … … … … … … Computing Imitation (physical) > … Empathy (emotional) > … … Sympathy (thought) >
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548543729 Timestamp) You see, when machines communicate they can say ‘context change’. (meaning, new model to narrate). We do it with tone and inference – if we have good manners. Some people don’t inform you as to subject change. lol
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548543729 Timestamp) You see, when machines communicate they can say ‘context change’. (meaning, new model to narrate). We do it with tone and inference – if we have good manners. Some people don’t inform you as to subject change. lol