(FB 1548433145 Timestamp) YEAH IT SURE LOOKS MESSY. SO DOES MATH. —“it’s like languages were to be spoken not written down. if you can’t write 5 volumes on your ideas, that I can’t read it at all. Don’t get me wrong your work is correct but it’s so god damn awful messy”—Mediocre Croat Yes, um, spoken grammar and written grammar are different because it is easier to continually disambiguate speech with tone and paus than the written word with () , …, -. ;, ,., lol. On the other hand the scope of this work is huge, because it begins with the completion of the scientific method and applies it to every single field at some level or other in order to create a commensurable and therefore testable language. So, on average 6m-2y to learn it. You’re a smart enough guy and you can probably undrestand the grammars, the operational grammar, the epistemology, and the law fairly easily. (This is what people tell me.) But since we combine terms from so many disciplines and disambiguate them so heavily, terms are a pain. No other way to turn a lot of ‘very conflated colloquial language’ for the purpose of discounts on conveying meaning by free association, into a set of measurements for the purpose of prohibiting ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fraud, and deceit prohibiting free assoc. There is no short route to algebraic geometry, no short route to the current law, and not short route to testimonial speech. Just is what it is. As Max Weber suggested, the future would consist entirely of reducing all knowledge to some form of calculation. Not that someone wont come along after me and simplify it, but honestly how do you simplify something as simple as this: https://www.facebook.com/thepropertarianinstitute/posts/1989176281196492 รขยยฆ Aside from the Grammars and Operational Grammar that’s about has simple as it can be.
Theme: Grammar
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548431818 Timestamp) —“I don’t know if this a funny, witty inside joke or not, so that’s how propertarians is at least to me, a very obscure dialectic.”— Yep. Well, if you sat down and tried to disambiguate terminology across all fields into a single commensurable language limited to operations, you would probably make a few different choices in term selection, but you’d end up with the same problem: terms=measurements=precision. So yeah. the language is a problem. Which is what we tell everyone. 1- disambiguated, operational language and grammar is hard. 2- speaking in ePrime is hard. 3- speaking in complete transactions is hard. But it converts language into algorithms.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548679656 Timestamp) THE “ENTIRELY REASONABLE” UTILITY OF MATHEMATICS —“…Russell and Frege …”– Sorry but mathematics is so useful because it consists of precisely one constant relation: position, for which we have invented a naming scheme of positional names. Therefore every reference in any set of constant relations of any scale, at any scale, can be named (in as many as n-dimensions), and with that name all other relations ascertainable. Mathematics consists of the assignment of, and operations upon, positional names names, and the various techniques for constructing or deducing constant relations with others names. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is nothing more than its dependence upon a single immutable constant relation: positional name. This simplicity makes the error to which all other names (other logics) are subject effectively impossible, and limits error to errors of operation and deduction.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548789834 Timestamp) WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? 1) I understand your meaning. 2) That statement is meaningful. 3) That statement is true. “…for the purpose of … ” a) conveying an experience (allegorical) b) conveying a causal relation (contingency) c) conveying a premise for the purpose of deduction (consistency) Note how we conflate these. 1 = a, 2 = b, 3 = c. Truthfulness requires the satisfaction of the market demand for meaning(disambiguation), contingency(opportunity), consistency (deduction).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548789834 Timestamp) WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? 1) I understand your meaning. 2) That statement is meaningful. 3) That statement is true. “…for the purpose of … ” a) conveying an experience (allegorical) b) conveying a causal relation (contingency) c) conveying a premise for the purpose of deduction (consistency) Note how we conflate these. 1 = a, 2 = b, 3 = c. Truthfulness requires the satisfaction of the market demand for meaning(disambiguation), contingency(opportunity), consistency (deduction).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548991173 Timestamp) Bill Joslin IMO korzybski devised a way to enact an essentially relativistic and nihilists position. The brilliance of this tool, again IMO , was grounding e-prime into a standard criteria i.e. operationalism. By doing so it closes the door to the relativistic, nihilistic uses. Further to that, e-prime strongly couples our speech and thought to the operational criteria. But if left at this alone, I think it would suffer the same flaws as logical positivism… By expanding the criteria into multiple dimensions, we don’t reduce our warrant (speech and thought) to overly restrictive limitations (i.e. cherry picking, erroneous or undue dismissiveness.) The last component , acknowledging truth as an approximation (as per Curt’s view) prevents us from undue certainty and dogmatically held assertions of “truth”. So – E-prime eliminates unfounded assertions – Operationalism eliminates relativistic nihilistic application – Expanded operationalism (testimonial criteria) eliminates myopic limitations (undue dismissiveness) – And provisional truth theories eliminate dogmatic assertions of certainty. – The first contributor did the light lifting – nothing really – The second (Bridgeman) cross the major threshold – Curt and his community (assuming other contributed – Curzon etc) the the heavy lifting
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1548968617 Timestamp) IF YOU PRACTICE EPRIME ALONE YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE WHAT IT WILL DO FOR YOUR REASONING OVER TIME.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
(FB 1548968617 Timestamp) IF YOU PRACTICE EPRIME ALONE YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE WHAT IT WILL DO FOR YOUR REASONING OVER TIME.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549073280 Timestamp) —“Why you call me daft?”— A rhetorical device to both capture your attention and reward you when you realize you are right – and to taunt those who are wrong into defensive posture so that they retaliate. ๐
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549073280 Timestamp) —“Why you call me daft?”— A rhetorical device to both capture your attention and reward you when you realize you are right – and to taunt those who are wrong into defensive posture so that they retaliate. ๐