Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553610101 Timestamp) LAW IS THE TOP OF THE KNOWLEDGE PYRAMID. Why? The greatest scope with greatest limits. Science is a deflationary grammar of law. (Deflationary Grammars) Logic … Math … … Algorithms … … … Recipes, Protocols … … … … Sciences … … … … … The Law (Descriptive Grammar) … … … … Narration (history) … … … Fiction … … Fictionaisms … Deceit Fraud (Inflationary Grammars)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1553610101 Timestamp) LAW IS THE TOP OF THE KNOWLEDGE PYRAMID. Why? The greatest scope with greatest limits. Science is a deflationary grammar of law. (Deflationary Grammars) Logic … Math … … Algorithms … … … Recipes, Protocols … … … … Sciences … … … … … The Law (Descriptive Grammar) … … … … Narration (history) … … … Fiction … … Fictionaisms … Deceit Fraud (Inflationary Grammars)

  • (Happy to have that discussion some time: Limited by knowledge; by a grammar of

    (Happy to have that discussion some time: Limited by knowledge; by a grammar of expression; and tending to similarity. Yes. Sufficient agency to overcome limits genetics, grammars, and incentives? With work. Consciousness evolved for cooperation. But with it Agency is possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-26 19:08:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1110619646984683521

    Reply addressees: @StanOrOllie @hbdchick

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072609453336420352

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1072609453336420352

  • LAW IS THE TOP OF THE KNOWLEDGE PYRAMID. Why? The greatest scope with greatest l

    LAW IS THE TOP OF THE KNOWLEDGE PYRAMID.

    Why? The greatest scope with greatest limits.

    Science is a deflationary grammar of law.

    (Deflationary Grammars)

    Logic

    … Math

    … … Algorithms

    … … … Recipes, Protocols

    … … … … Sciences

    … … … … … The Law (Descriptive Grammar)

    … … … … Narration (history)

    … … … Fiction

    … … Fictionaisms

    … Deceit

    Fraud

    (Inflationary Grammars)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-26 10:21:00 UTC

  • “Because it’s hard to see what isn’t labelled.”— Michael D. Abbott. The correc

    —“Because it’s hard to see what isn’t labelled.”— Michael D. Abbott.

    The correct term is ‘named’.

    –“If you can name a thing, you can destroy at thing”–

    This quote in many forms is one of the oldest ideas in the western tradition. it is where our ‘spells’ come from. its origin is in metallurgy.

    Knowledge directs power.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-24 12:56:00 UTC

  • “Not sure “continuous recursive disambiguation” really clarifies anything!”—De

    —“Not sure “continuous recursive disambiguation” really clarifies anything!”—Dennis Spain

    You probably don’t know how to write software, haven’t read turing, nor chomsky, because that’s what ‘language’ means.

    Continuous (a stream of sounds), recursive (passing ‘state’ – you might think of this incorrectly as ‘accumulating’), disambiguation (removing error).

    Just as science is falsificationary, language is falsificationary.

    Sounds in a stream should result in continuous decreases in ambiguity until the point at which we establish a context, a contract for meaning, and a warranty of due diligence limiting that meaning.

    Which is what a ‘grammar’ means: Rules of continuous recursive disambiguation.

    (Turing > Chomsky) + (Weber > Mises > Rothbard > Hoppe) + (Hayek) -> Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-24 12:04:00 UTC

  • THE SERIES OF GRAMMARS PSYCHOLOGY (important) (read this) —“is there any small

    THE SERIES OF GRAMMARS PSYCHOLOGY

    (important) (read this)

    —“is there any smaller sphere in which you think psychoanalysis is an appropriate method or inquiry? (ie, hopefully the one it is intended for – personal therapy rather than public argumentation).”— Gerard

    I think that it is always better to use this series:

    1. Means: Personality traits and reward systems. (anglo/physical)

    2. Cause: Acquisitionism and Propertarianism.(masculine/objective)

    3. Training: Stoicism (Acquisition of virtues by CBT)

    4 Affect(Heroic): Jungian ( Archetypes as proxies for traits) (german, sympathetic)

    5. Defect:(Victim)Freudian Analysis (feminine conformity) (Jewish feminine)

    This series begins with the most precise but least experiential and moves to the least precise but must experiential.

    Personally I would prefer, that we use the above series just like the series math, physics, chemistry, biology, cooperation (sentience/economics), speech (negotiation), that we all knew the hierarchy of those from the most physical to the most experiential, and as such that we understood how each expresses a more fictional but more experiential grammar as we proceed down that list.

    This series is as important as:

    1. The hierarchy of Measurements (mathematics)

    2. The hierarchy of States of Matter (physical science)

    3. The hierarchy of Grammars (language)

    4. The hierarchy of Knowledge (aristotelian categories)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-24 11:54:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/55837863_10157069668602264_836174848

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/55837863_10157069668602264_8361748481416626176_o_10157069668597264.jpg Quote by Michael Abbott

    CurtD: Correct. Although, we can say, conversely, that both freudian theory, and feminine strategy, are genetic expressions of the same interests, and that neither freud nor woman chooses their strategy, but is an animal barely conscious, and simply following baser instinct.Gearóid Walshis there any smaller sphere in which you think psychoanalysis is an appropriate method or inquiry? (ie, hopefully the one it is intended for – personal therapy rather than public argumentation).Mar 24, 2019, 11:29 AMCurt DoolittleI think that it is always better to use this series:

    1. Means: Personality traits and rewards. (anglo/physical)

    2. Cause: Acquisitionism and Propertarianism.(masculine/objective)

    3. Affect(Heroic): Jungian ( Archetypes as proxies for traits) (german, sympathetic)

    4. Defect:(Victim)Freudian Analysis (feminine conformity) (Jewish feminine)

    Personally I would prefer, that we use the above series just like the series math, physics, chemistry, biology, cooperation (sentience/economics), speech (negotiation), that we all knew the hierarchy of those from the most physical to the most experiential, and as such that we understood how each expresses a more fictional but more experiential grammar as we proceed down that list.Mar 24, 2019, 11:46 AMGearóid Walshthe best psychoanalytic writing I have seen has been when it’s synthesized with bodywork. then, it’s not storytelling (with some possible emotional dimension) any more. it’s linked to a material and external standard – something I would still consider highly experimental, but at least with some empirical markers.Mar 24, 2019, 11:49 AMMichael D. AbbottI believe that Freud was right about the following: The super-ego comes from man (the father) and when man is removed, the demonic id possesses women, making them hysterical, while men become infantilized and neurotic.Mar 24, 2019, 12:20 PMMichael D. AbbottFreud is currently unpopular, but he was right about some things. In particular, masculine stoicism in society (from fathers) actually locks down the ego’s potential for hysteria, by curtailing its egoism under a kind of masculine oppression of emotion.

    Contrary to leftist ideology, some oppression is in fact righteous.Mar 24, 2019, 12:22 PMGearóid Walshthe superego also somewhat corresponds to the internalized social contract on the collective level.

    it’s very important to look into that – to see if it’s too harsh and debilitating or whether its views withstand testing.Mar 24, 2019, 12:24 PMQuote by Michael Abbott

    CurtD: Correct. Although, we can say, conversely, that both freudian theory, and feminine strategy, are genetic expressions of the same interests, and that neither freud nor woman chooses their strategy, but is an animal barely conscious, and simply following baser instinct.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-24 11:12:00 UTC

  • ummm.. language consists of a stream of continuous recursive disambiguation cons

    ummm..

    language consists of a stream of continuous recursive disambiguation consisting of what we would call stories of changes in state, culminating in a series

    1.comprehension,

    2.agreement/disagreement,

    3.warranty of due diligence. (limiting)

    When you say ‘declarative’ i use the term more common in the philosophy of science ‘promissory’, and when duly diligent ‘testimonial’.

    So your term ‘declarative’ means opinion, the mainstream considers it promissory, and I consider it testimonial.

    The difference between these three claims is demand. Language satisfies DEMAND for INFALLIBILITY in the given circumstance.

    THe market for due diligence increases as externalities to the speech increase.

    This is demonstrated everywhere in all walks of life.

    It’s not an opinion it’s the evidence.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-24 00:11:00 UTC

  • THE DEVIL IN THE WORD ‘IS’ AND PROPERTARIANISM One ‘is’ a propertarian the way o

    THE DEVIL IN THE WORD ‘IS’ AND PROPERTARIANISM

    One ‘is’ a propertarian the way one is a doctor, lawyer, engineer or mathematician. It’s a discipline of law. That’s it.

    Where “is = A PRACTITIONER OF A DISCIPLINE”

    One ‘is’ an advocate for a social order or other.

    Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR A CLASS PREFERENCE”

    One ‘is’ a member of one religious habituation or other.

    Where ‘is = A SET OF INDOCTRINATED COGNITIVE BIASES”

    Propertarianism is rule of law: Nomocracy (NO-MO’-crah-see)

    Where “is = IDENTITY (equal to).”

    Propertarianism is a formal rule of law that eliminates disinformation in the commons, and particularly the means of abrahamic deception we call baiting, pilpul and critique.

    Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR EXPANSION OF INVOLUNTARY WARRANTY TO SPEECH”

    Curt Doolittle ‘is’ an advocate for Nomocracy, Militia, Monarchy, Ethnocentrism, Nationalism, and Shared Returns (dividends) on the Realm (state profits) for western peoples in particular, but for all peoples capable of it.

    Where “is = An ADVOCATE for ARISTOCRACY”

    Curt Doolittle ‘is’ an advocate for policies that produce what we would call national socialism in the original french german and italian ambitions, but by rule of law and market means unlimited by previous failures to understand money and economics as merely information and influence.

    Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR NATIONAL SOCIALIST POLICIES IN THE FACE OF ONGOING AUTOMATION”

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-16 12:13:00 UTC