Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • NOPE NOPE —“Curt: What would (….) in a propertarian society?”— PROP IS A M

    NOPE NOPE

    —“Curt: What would (….) in a propertarian society?”—

    PROP IS A METHOD.

    Propertarianism is a methodology, consisting of a set of methodologies, a set of definitions, and a set of arguments, that produce a commensurable language, complete the scientific method, and embody that scientific method into rule of law.

    What you do with that law is wide open – it just has to be transparent, and it will prohibit all sorts of lying in public about whatever order you have.

    P-law is extremely facist out of the box – it is extremely nationalistic, and extremely intolerant, and especially intolerant of our ancient enemy’s means of deceit. And It is very hard to engage in malfeasance under P-Law since it is simply too profitable for individuals to report criminals for fun and profit. It is a ruthless system of government for enemies of the productive people. It has no mercy for enemies foreign or domestic.

    FOR MY PEOPLE

    My focus has been on correcting the United states first, and the other european states second.

    I recommend, for my people, and my people alone, because my people alone appear capable of it:

    0 – An independent judiciary of the natural law

    1 – A militia of all able bodied men in the regimental model, attached to a ‘church’/’school’. A standing army of professional warriors, and citizen employees of the military who are inducted in emergencies, since an increasing scope of military work is technical and administrative.

    2 – A Hereditary Monarchy with a professional cabinet

    3 – Virtual Houses of Governors, Industry, Business, Labor, and Family(homeowners). Where house members are selected randomly from the population, to provide assent or dissent to proposals by the monarchy in the raising and use of taxes. And where all houses must ‘pass’ (ascend).

    4 – A near prohibition on bureaucracy; all government service “at the pleasure of the monarchy”; and a prohibition on pensions for public servants.

    5 – My understanding is that this would provide all the benefits of fascism without the need for a dictator-character and the attendant risk. Even then, there is no reason a monarch cannot appoint such a person as did the romans, in times of crisis or need.

    FLIPPED INCENTIVES

    This produces a very different set of incentives since everyone is always and everywhere accountable for everything.

    MIDDLE CLASS IS HARD TO BEAT

    Monarchies appear to run better governments until they cannot. They cannot when the commercial complexity reaches the point of choosing limited investments from a host of possible investments. In this case the middle class appears to do well UNTIL they start socializing losses and privatizing the commons or engaging in arbitrage against the long term interests of the people.

    FEDERATION

    Any number of these monarchies can be federated under a supreme court of the natural law, just as the church federated the monarchies under church ‘license’ – the principle value of the court and the church being the ‘delegitimization’ of a ruler or a government, there by sanctioning the people and neighbors to replace that ruler, in the european tradition. This would, I expect, be rare, since royal families are extremely intolerant of family members who risk their status – and often make them ‘disappear’.

    My preference (Fantasy) would be to restore the anglo empire, and the germanic (Holy roman) empire, and to complete the intermarium and end the conflict of the 20th century brought about by ((())) the enemies of our people under the banner of world communism and the destruction of our peoples.

    FOR OTHER PEOPLES

    For other peoples I recommend a flexible system of government not terribly different from the Roman and English:

    – Fascism (Generalship) for time of war or conflict.

    – Monarchies with professional cabinets as long as possible

    – Adding Houses of government as via negativa juries when too large. These juries must only approve/deny raising of funds by the monarchy (cabinet).

    – If for some reason some semblance of democracy is necessary (it isn’t, but it may be impossible to avoid it for pragmatic reasons) I recommend virtual houses for each of the classes and genders, where classes trade in a market rather than pass legislation by majority rule. Where resources are either equally or proportionally distributed. Then posting proposals for x months, then using a lottery (Greece) rather than politicians to select the juries (houses), then allowing the juries to conduct business (trade)

    In other words, there is no ‘propertarian society’ per se other than all those societies run under rule of law by natural law.

    So….

    You can ask me questions of natural law – ‘what would the law say about ????’

    You can ask me about different political orders: “what order, or what would you recommend for ????”

    You can ask me what constitution I’d recommend for america or germany, or england or poland etc. “what would you recommend for????”

    You can ask me what I’ve put in the working constitution.

    As long as they are under natural law they are ‘propertarian’.

    If they are not then they are not.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-07 21:06:00 UTC

  • RESPONSE TO “TURD FLINGING MONKEY” AND KRITARCHY =Turd Flinging Monkey= == CURTD

    RESPONSE TO “TURD FLINGING MONKEY” AND KRITARCHY

    =Turd Flinging Monkey=

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lr90HDyfpU&

    == CURTD ==

    Sorry man but Propertarianism is a METHODOLOGY. You can produce any kind of government with it that you want. I Talk about restoring fascism, monarchical government, multi house government, as options for reforming our system. I propose a constitution for restoring the constitution and defending and repairing the weaknesses in it, and another for devolving the federal government into an insurer of last resort.

    But Kritarchy, especially in the jewish method (legal interpretation of literary tradition), where there is no means of commons production (The reason the jews always failed) is pretty much the opposite. You could say instead, that the ultimate government under the method would be more like the way the church served as a judiciary over european nationstates, and that church as it would have evolved had natural law and deism (anthropomorphism of the laws of nature and the natural law) replaced parable and supernaturalism.

    Very tedious to defend against straw men.

    =Turd Flinging Monkey=

    I’m referring specifically to elements such as making lying illegal, and declaring intangibles property. This would necessarily open up a legal nightmare which would ultimately rest on the human biases of judge to sort out.

    However if Propertarianism can be anything, and its merely methodology, then so be it. It appeared to be promoted as a system of government, not merely a methodology to create any government you want.

    ==CURTD==

    Yes, It is a methodology. And as far as I know it is the missing logic of psychological and social sciences including economics and law – because it has parsimonious explanatory power in every one of those disciplines.

    Yes it is possible to use this methodology to construct any system of laws transparently and truthfully.

    Yes it is possible to use this methodology to plug holes in our common law, our legislative processes, and our judicial processes. Because the method, by producing a formal logic of the ‘soft (human)’ sciences enables and forces judgements made not by interpretation but by application of that logic.

    The prosecution of lies in the commons is possible because today we successfully suppress fraud in commercial speech, and in the past we used to prosecute scolding, libel, slander, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by conspiracy, and treason in defense of the commons (King’s Peace).

    We allowed the state and the left to use the hole in ‘free speech’, rather than free truthful speech, to destroy our protections of the informational commons. And we did not repair the holes in the constitution (ascent w/o court ascent, inability of the court to return undecidability to the legislature, and that the court’s ‘interpretation’)

    We did so for the simple reason that christianity is constructed by the same technique of lying, in excitement of the same incentives, as are marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism: false promise, baiting into hazard, the sophisms of pilpul and critique, and environmental saturation with repetition of the deceit despite persistent contrary evidence. This is the same behavior as drug addiction because it is in our underlying biology why we are vulnerable to drug addiction: demand for mindfulness.

    But rather than expressly permitting christian ‘parable’ and outlawing all other forms of deceit (it was the anglo enlightenment at the time, and religion, philosophy and science were competing), we have preserved those holes in our law permitting the abuse of our people and the gradual INTENTIONAL degradation of our informational commons, upon which most of the population is more dependent than upon reason.

    As in all eras, every time we increase the scope of suppressions of the law, there are a fury of cases until the incentives work their way through the ‘markets’ such that people change their behavior in order to avoid prosecution under the law.

    This particular law I (we) recommend suppresses commercial, financial, economic, political, and pedagogical speech IN THE COMMONS from using that method of false promise, baiting into hazard, the sophisms of pilpul (justification) and critique (criticism) and environmental saturation with these deceits.

    For example, in this case I could claim damage because you published a piece of of assertive critique (straw manning) rather than simply asking the question whether what you thought was true or false, and operating from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. Because there are legitimate criticisms of the work. I know them and I publish them with frequency. Especially when the work is available for free, the definition of it on the home page in bright colors, and the overview of the innovations in an outline with links to relevant arguments. As such you sought attention, virtue signals, and if you collect revenue, you sought profits, by failure of due diligence before asserting a criticism in public.

    The result would be fewer public opinions of higher quality, and a near eradication of leftist discourse. Conservatives would not have this problem since conservatism is largely reducible to defense of all forms of property equally, and libertarianism defense of private property, and the left defense of nothing other than unmeritocratic consumption of children.

    But the fact that law has been, is now, and must be the means by which we engineer a social order of sufficient precision that advanced civilization can occur in a complex division of cognition and labor among at least the productive classes – although arguably religion is sufficient for slaves, serfs, underclass, and unskilled and semiskilled labor. Although they must be bound by law, since law remains, the adjudication of differences in conflicts over property, where property the result of demonstrated interest (costs).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-06 10:02:00 UTC

  • TRIVIUM > QUADRIVIUM > PHILOSOPHY Trivium: The Word. Grammar (Primary School – r

    TRIVIUM > QUADRIVIUM > PHILOSOPHY

    Trivium: The Word.

    Grammar (Primary School – repetition), Logic (Middle School – understanding ), Rhetoric (high school – argument)

    -vs-

    Quadrivium: The Number.

    Arithmetic(The Number), Geometry(The Number in Space), Music(in Time) and Astronomy(Motion(Space and Time))

    -vs-

    Philosophy: The Idea

    TODAY

    IMO Propertarianism completes Philosophy with Grammars (Metaphysics), Acquisitionism (Psychology), Compatibilism (Sociology), Propertarianism(Ethics), Natural Law (Politics), adds Group Strategy, and articulates Aesthetics.

    Between the logic of the grammars, the logic of numbers, and the logic of cooperation (P), we have completed the systems of calculation available to the human mind.

    THE EDUCATION IN THE SKILLS OF THINKING

    Together, the trivium and the quadrivium comprised the seven liberal arts (based on thinking skills), as distinguished from the practical arts (such as medicine and architecture).

    Educationally, the trivium and the quadrivium imparted to the student the seven liberal arts (essential thinking skills) of classical antiquity.

    THE TRIVIUM

    Grammar teaches the mechanics of language to the student. This is the step where the student “comes to terms,” defining the objects and information perceived by the five senses. Hence, the Law of Identity: a tree is a tree, and not a cat.

    Logic (also dialectic) is the “mechanics” of thought and of analysis, the process of identifying fallacious arguments and statements and so systematically removing contradictions, thereby producing factual knowledge that can be trusted.

    Rhetoric is the application of language in order to instruct and to persuade the listener and the reader. It is the knowledge (grammar) now understood (logic) and being transmitted outwards as wisdom (rhetoric).

    THE QUADRIVIUM

    The quadrivium (plural: quadrivia ) is the four subjects, or arts (namely arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy), taught after teaching the trivium.

    The quadrivium consisted of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. These followed the preparatory work of the trivium, consisting of grammar, logic, and rhetoric.

    The quadrivium was the upper division of the medieval education in the liberal arts, which comprised arithmetic (number), geometry (number in space), music (number in time), and astronomy (number in space and time).

    PHILOSOPHY

    In turn, the quadrivium was considered the foundation for the study of philosophy (sometimes called the “liberal art par excellence”) and theology.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-04 10:48:00 UTC

  • COURSE UPDATE: LAW103 – Foundations. You are going to love this course. It break

    COURSE UPDATE: LAW103 – Foundations.

    You are going to love this course. It breaks the methodology in to very clear layers, and the outcome is a sort of cheat sheet of definitions, and methods for vocabulary, statements, arguments, and laws. I am pretty sure we’ve succeeded in making it ‘learnable’.

    … Back on antibiotics again. Too much sniffling and sneezing to record the audio today.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-02 09:45:00 UTC

  • A Style Guide to P-Prose

    I. THE FORMAT OF POSTS – A STYLE GUIDE

    1 – A POST ————————– THIS TITLE IN CAPS MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT (this cues you to important stuff) And this is the body text here. Particularly if I break it into paragraphs. ––“this is quoting someone else”–– —this is quoting myself— … this … … is a … … … series that you might want to learn. |SERIES|: This > Is > A > Dimensional > Definition SUBHEADING And more text goes here. Subheadings cue you to the content. Signature Line I use the signature line for myself. So that I can search for the posts I want to publish on my web site later. So they are sort of a ‘stamp of approval’. 2 – A NOTE OR SKETCH ————————– this doesn’t have header, isn’t broken into paragraphs, and doesn’t even use init-caps, so it’s just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress – rumination. 3 – A PERSONAL OPINION ————————– (this doesn’t have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means it’s possibly something to ignore … because it’s not an argument. it’s just an opinion or feeling.) 4 – A DIARY ENTRY ————————– (diary entry) this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other.

    . . .

    II. ON STYLE ————————–

    Karl Popper created (from aristotle, weber, and pareto) the method of analytic philosophy I make use of, which includes Definitions, Series, Lists, Tables, and parentheticals. He used italics a lot but italics aren’t available in FB or I would us Italics where I use Initial Capitals to denote the name of a definition in a series I have defined elsewhere.Bold to allow for those of us who read quickly to scan by keywords. German Capitals: for names of Ideas, like “Rationalism”, “Sovereignty”, “Propertarianism”, or Neologisms, or to alert you to disambiguation (redefinitions). Parentheticals “(…)”: to bridge operational(technical) and meaningful(familiar) terms, or to limit interpretation.  I try to use parentheticals to create parallel sequences between vernacular terminology and technical terminology, or to insert my ‘voice or opinion’ into the middle of an objective text. Series and Lists : a sequence of definitions representing a spectrum of terms. The use of series deflates, increases precision, and defeats conflation. First exposure to the methodology’s use and repetition of series tends to both be the most obvious and most helpful of the techniques. Constructions : tracing the path of the development of ideas from primitive to current constructions. Algorithms : general processes for the construction of deflations. (Repetition) : ( … ) (Repetition of series) : ( … ) Wordy Prose. – Analytic Philosophy is, of necessity, WORDY. – Operational Language is, of necessity, WORDY. – Programming Algorithms is, of necessity, WORDY. – Law, whether Contractual, Legislative, or Constitutional, is WORDY. – Algorithmic Natural Law is of necessity, WORDY. Technical Languages evolve to speak precisely. Precise language contains technical terms and is wordy. Why, if all the other sciences require technical language, would we think that speaking technically in the science of cooperation is not going to be wordy? Well, it’s going to be wordy.

    . . .

    USE OF PARENTHETICALS (LIKE THIS)

    The use of parenthesis (parentheticals) to carry on (communicate) related (parallel) meanings (definitions) so that we both (simultaneously) convey meaning (free association), but at the same time prevent misinterpretation (provide limits). In other words we can carry on via positiva and via negativa in the same paragraph or sentence. Or that we may use colloquial verse, but include technical terms. It’s profoundly effective. If you read Popper’s work he uses italics (which was criticized at the time) for similar purposes. IMHO parentheticals solve the problem of choosing latin prose consisting of long sentences, consisting of many related phrases (which Claire Rae Randall has brought up recently), or separating two sides of an argument into separate paragraphs. Latin prose tends to be poetic in order to prevent judgment until later phrases emerge (lincoln’s gettysburg address). This becomes increasingly difficult as we speak in increasingly technical terms. So my opinion is that the parenthetical technique is evolving as our grammatical solution to conceptual density in technical matters, where we can more easily communicate such concepts without burdening and confusing the audience with ‘hanging incomplete ideas’ (separate paragraphs), or too many hanging incomplete ideas (many phrases), by simply limiting each positive concept as its being used (via parentheticals). But the operational definition would be to provide both meanings in common prose and limits in parentheticals or the reverse: provide precise terms in prose, and common examples in parenthesis, in the same sentence structure. Now if you read Frank’s comments on other’s posts, at all you’ll see him do both Precise/Example, and Common/Technical at the same time. This turns out to be what I suggest, is an almost perfect grammar. Or rather, the next evolution of grammar as we increase informational density. Because like the common law, it ‘corrects’ or ‘informs’ you immediately without requiring that you hold multiple dense contexts in your head until they are later resolved in the text. My opinion, taken from Greg Bear, is that if we could talk and show flashes of images at the same time – say on our phones, or floating above our heads – then the combination of words (precision) and examples (Images) would create nearly perfect communication.

    Writing in Parentheticals, Series, and Axes (grammar) I learned the technique of writing with series(sequences) and parenthetic parallels(like this) from Karl Popper (Critical Rationalism). And it was his adoption and use of of series rather than sets that distinguished Popper from the Analytic school. I did not understand originally what was superior about his approach to analytic philosophy, but I understood he had improved upon it. I only understood that he had identified that science was critical not justificationary (like morality and law), and that along with Hayek they were the first to grasp that social science like physical science, must be modeled as a problem of information, not an analogistic model from of prior generations(electricity, steam, water, mechanicals) – just as I understand our problem today is an artifact of industrialization and the attempt to manufacture identical units rather than ‘grow’ a portfolio of the best humans. Later I came to understand that both parenthetic parallels, series, and relations between axis (think supply demand curves), provided tests of the NECESSITY of meaning, rather than NORMATIVE or COLLOQUIAL meaning. In other words, they limit the reader (and the author) from mal-attribution of properties that occur in normative and colloquial, and particular, and ‘ignorant’ speech.

    . . .

    USE OF  DISAMBIGUATION, OPERATIONALIZATION, SERIALIZATION,

    What the heck does that mean?

    1. serialize: to arrange (something) in a series.
    2. series: a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another.
    3. From “Disambiguation by serialization by constant relation, and operationalization.”
    4. The constant relation (falsehood, epistemology, morality)
    5. The serialization: ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking…
    6. Where operationalization means converting into a series of subjectively testable human actions thereby producing measurements given the marginal indifference in human action.

    So where |falsehood| is a monodirectional series, |epistemology| is monodirectional loop, and |MORAL| is bidirectional from the center ‘amoral’. This process requires we collect all synonyms and antonyms, organize them by some constant relation into a series of less or more of that constant relation. Why? All words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs) are constructed of dimensions (scales, series of measurements), open to sense, perception, emotion, or action. In most cases the human sense perception spectrum appears to produce no more than five degrees of difference for any measurement, such as “distant past, past, recent past, now.” And there are a number of reasons for this – which is why you can only visualize so many of the same things, remember so many numbers or terms, or discern so many directions etc. In general terms our universe is triangular bias left, forward, bias right, which is our direction of motion. This is also the minimum and maximum necessary decision criteria. If I go deeper it will get too complicated. So I’ll leave it there. So, by disambiguation by inventorying, operationalizing, serializing into sequences we create unambiguous measurements for language that prohibit conflation and ambiguity and therefore errors of inference and deduction, effectively turning language – especially language like english with so many terms – into a system of measurement. By combining this technique of very specific terms (measurements), using operational language that is testable, in promissory form (I Promise that…), absent verb-to-be (meaning “I dunno the condition of existence”) in complete sentences, of complete transactions of changes in state, we convert language to a via-negativa equivalent of a via-positiva programming language with the same test of possibility (compilability) since the ability to compile is a test of disambiguity (yes that’s the secret sauce). By using supply demand tests of statements rather than ideals we end up with the formal economics of human behavior. For example, decidability = demand for infallibility in the context in question.  

    . . .

    USE OF TESTING RECIPROCITY, PROPERTY IN TOTO, TESTIMONY,

    ( … )

    . . .

    USE OF ARROWS? >, <, ->, <-

    —“Can you clarify for me your use of the greater than symbol”– HIERARCHY OF PURPOSE

    1. Logical: The Direction of Serialization, 2. Dependency: Hierarchy of Dependency, 3. Evolution: Evolution of Development 4. Physical Causality: Sequence of Operations. FORMAT

    |CONCEPT| neutral > low > medium > high > upper limit |CONCEPT| upper limit < high <  medium < low <  neutral |CONCEPT|  worst < much worse  < worse < neutral > better > much better > best EXAMPLES: Hierarchy less to more:

    |FALSEHOOD|: Ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > obscurantism > fictionalism > deceit > denial. Direction Less to more in both directions:

    |MORAL|: Evil < immoral < unethical < amoral > ethical > moral > Righteous. Process less to more:

    |EPISTEMOLOGY| Observation > Auto-Association > Free Association > hypothesis > (mind-test) > theory > (action-test) > established theory or law (market-test) > limit discovery (falsification) > repeat (revision) I could write |Falsehood| like this, in code: 

    Define Falsehood( Criteria[] ) Returns Degree as Scalar {
   Return FIT(Criteria, (
       Ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > 
       obscurantism > fictionalism > deceit > denial
       ));
}

    . . .

    USE OF GRAPHS

    A Triangulation: 

    ......................COMPETITION
....................Voluntary Exchange

................Rule of Law of Reciprocity
..............Christian Rule of Law Monarchy
.............. Anglo Classical Liberalism
...............Continental Social Democracy
                  /                   \
Tolerant Civic Nationalism.........Intolerant Civic Nationalism
Christian Fundamentalism ..........National Socialism
                            ___
....Submission-Seduction...........Dominance-Warfare
.......UNIVERSALISM..................PARTICULARISM

      Or many other shapes and tables. A Hierarchy: 

    Human Logical Facility (constant relations) >
…. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) >
…. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) >
…. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) >
…. …. …. …. Math (positional names) >
…. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) >
…. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) >
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) >
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence

    A Comparison: 

    ............Female and Semitic vs Male and European
.....................Dysgenics vs Eugenics
...................Consumption vs Capitalization
...........Private Consumption vs Commons Production
...................Undermining vs Order
..........Approval/Disapproval vs True/False
................Incrementalism vs zero tolerance
.........Plausible Deniability vs Warranty
.........................GSRRM vs Truth Regardless of Cost
......................Critique vs Falsification
........................Pilpul vs Justification
.................False Promise vs Promise
...........Baiting into Hazard vs Offers of Reciprocity
......................One Herd vs Many Packs

      Multi-Hierarchies 

    Burial …
Animism ….
… Sun Tzu Realism ( martial realism)
… … Confucianism (harmony)
… … … Daoism (Tolerance)
… Proto IE Religion
… … Proto Vedic
… … … Hinduism
… … … Zoroastrianism
… … European Sky Father (martial realism)
… … … European Common Law (legal realism)
… … … … Platonism (idealism)
… … … … … Aristotelianism (realism naturalism)
… Proto Semitic
… … Proto Judaism
… … … … Abrahamism <- Zoroastrianism (Authoritarianism)
… … … … … Rabbinical Judaism (Justificationism)
… … … … … Christianity (resistance)
… … … … … … The Augustinian Conflation (compromise)
… … … … … … … Orthodoxy – Catholicism, (settlement)
… … … … … … … … Protestantism, (reformation)
… … … … … … … … … Evangelicalism (folk-religion restoration)
… … … … … … Islam (7th c+)
… … … … … … … Fundamentalist Islam (11-12th c+)

    . . .

    USE OF SEQUENTIAL DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS

    I don’t frequently use the narrative style. In fact almost everything I write is in programmatic style, where one declarative statement follows another, each incrementally adding to the one before it – brick by brick.

    PREMISE OF AN OPTIMUM GOVERNMENT OF MAN 0) A militia consisting of shareholders who reciprocally and unconditionally, insure one another’s property-in-toto from the involuntary imposition of costs by both members and non. 1) A contract (constitution) between those shareholders for that reciprocal insurance, consisting of Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal applicability, absence of discretion through strict construction, with a monarchy as a judge (veto) of last resort. And providing for: 2) A market for polities in which many small polities compete by the production of different commons. (btw: what polities will attract not only the most, but the best women?) 3) A market for the production of commons within any given polity, by exchange between the classes (those with different reproductive strategies, capabilities, and capital interests) … (more) …

    . . .

    USE OF PSEUDOCODE

    Programming is not just a tool for using computers, but it is a new way of thinking that affected mathematics, logic, cognitive science, and now is altering physics. P-Logic consists in the convergence of programming, operationalism (which developed from  praxeology), economics (supply and demand). P-Law consists of the application of P-logic to Reciprocity including that subset of reciprocity we call testimony, or more commonly, truthful speech. We construct P-Law just like a program: 

    Given (conditions)
Given (definitions, imported references)
Whereas (we wish to, achieve some end - "original intent")
Therefore (we shall, within these limits)
By this means (processes, procedures, rules, regulations)
That will result in (results)
And that will expire when (conditions)
And we Counsel (advice)
And We Can Do So Under Law (because)
And We Warranty By (list of due diligence)
And We shall be Liable For (liability, signed by)

    This law is ‘rigorous’ because of the following reasons:

    • We define all properties of man and mankind such that false claims cannot be made.
    • We define testimony and reciprocity such that false and irreciprocal claims cannot be made.
    • We enumerate all rights and obligations such that they are uninterpretable.
    • We require proof by internal construction that the contract or legislation is permissible under the natural law.
    • We require strict construction of complete sentences in operational language producing complete transactions of change in state.
    • (and more)

    =========================== Closing: I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I don’t have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • A Style Guide to P-Prose

    I. THE FORMAT OF POSTS – A STYLE GUIDE

    1 – A POST ————————– THIS TITLE IN CAPS MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT (this cues you to important stuff) And this is the body text here. Particularly if I break it into paragraphs. ––“this is quoting someone else”–– —this is quoting myself— … this … … is a … … … series that you might want to learn. |SERIES|: This > Is > A > Dimensional > Definition SUBHEADING And more text goes here. Subheadings cue you to the content. Signature Line I use the signature line for myself. So that I can search for the posts I want to publish on my web site later. So they are sort of a ‘stamp of approval’. 2 – A NOTE OR SKETCH ————————– this doesn’t have header, isn’t broken into paragraphs, and doesn’t even use init-caps, so it’s just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress – rumination. 3 – A PERSONAL OPINION ————————– (this doesn’t have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means it’s possibly something to ignore … because it’s not an argument. it’s just an opinion or feeling.) 4 – A DIARY ENTRY ————————– (diary entry) this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other.

    . . .

    II. ON STYLE ————————–

    Karl Popper created (from aristotle, weber, and pareto) the method of analytic philosophy I make use of, which includes Definitions, Series, Lists, Tables, and parentheticals. He used italics a lot but italics aren’t available in FB or I would us Italics where I use Initial Capitals to denote the name of a definition in a series I have defined elsewhere.Bold to allow for those of us who read quickly to scan by keywords. German Capitals: for names of Ideas, like “Rationalism”, “Sovereignty”, “Propertarianism”, or Neologisms, or to alert you to disambiguation (redefinitions). Parentheticals “(…)”: to bridge operational(technical) and meaningful(familiar) terms, or to limit interpretation.  I try to use parentheticals to create parallel sequences between vernacular terminology and technical terminology, or to insert my ‘voice or opinion’ into the middle of an objective text. Series and Lists : a sequence of definitions representing a spectrum of terms. The use of series deflates, increases precision, and defeats conflation. First exposure to the methodology’s use and repetition of series tends to both be the most obvious and most helpful of the techniques. Constructions : tracing the path of the development of ideas from primitive to current constructions. Algorithms : general processes for the construction of deflations. (Repetition) : ( … ) (Repetition of series) : ( … ) Wordy Prose. – Analytic Philosophy is, of necessity, WORDY. – Operational Language is, of necessity, WORDY. – Programming Algorithms is, of necessity, WORDY. – Law, whether Contractual, Legislative, or Constitutional, is WORDY. – Algorithmic Natural Law is of necessity, WORDY. Technical Languages evolve to speak precisely. Precise language contains technical terms and is wordy. Why, if all the other sciences require technical language, would we think that speaking technically in the science of cooperation is not going to be wordy? Well, it’s going to be wordy.

    . . .

    USE OF PARENTHETICALS (LIKE THIS)

    The use of parenthesis (parentheticals) to carry on (communicate) related (parallel) meanings (definitions) so that we both (simultaneously) convey meaning (free association), but at the same time prevent misinterpretation (provide limits). In other words we can carry on via positiva and via negativa in the same paragraph or sentence. Or that we may use colloquial verse, but include technical terms. It’s profoundly effective. If you read Popper’s work he uses italics (which was criticized at the time) for similar purposes. IMHO parentheticals solve the problem of choosing latin prose consisting of long sentences, consisting of many related phrases (which Claire Rae Randall has brought up recently), or separating two sides of an argument into separate paragraphs. Latin prose tends to be poetic in order to prevent judgment until later phrases emerge (lincoln’s gettysburg address). This becomes increasingly difficult as we speak in increasingly technical terms. So my opinion is that the parenthetical technique is evolving as our grammatical solution to conceptual density in technical matters, where we can more easily communicate such concepts without burdening and confusing the audience with ‘hanging incomplete ideas’ (separate paragraphs), or too many hanging incomplete ideas (many phrases), by simply limiting each positive concept as its being used (via parentheticals). But the operational definition would be to provide both meanings in common prose and limits in parentheticals or the reverse: provide precise terms in prose, and common examples in parenthesis, in the same sentence structure. Now if you read Frank’s comments on other’s posts, at all you’ll see him do both Precise/Example, and Common/Technical at the same time. This turns out to be what I suggest, is an almost perfect grammar. Or rather, the next evolution of grammar as we increase informational density. Because like the common law, it ‘corrects’ or ‘informs’ you immediately without requiring that you hold multiple dense contexts in your head until they are later resolved in the text. My opinion, taken from Greg Bear, is that if we could talk and show flashes of images at the same time – say on our phones, or floating above our heads – then the combination of words (precision) and examples (Images) would create nearly perfect communication.

    Writing in Parentheticals, Series, and Axes (grammar) I learned the technique of writing with series(sequences) and parenthetic parallels(like this) from Karl Popper (Critical Rationalism). And it was his adoption and use of of series rather than sets that distinguished Popper from the Analytic school. I did not understand originally what was superior about his approach to analytic philosophy, but I understood he had improved upon it. I only understood that he had identified that science was critical not justificationary (like morality and law), and that along with Hayek they were the first to grasp that social science like physical science, must be modeled as a problem of information, not an analogistic model from of prior generations(electricity, steam, water, mechanicals) – just as I understand our problem today is an artifact of industrialization and the attempt to manufacture identical units rather than ‘grow’ a portfolio of the best humans. Later I came to understand that both parenthetic parallels, series, and relations between axis (think supply demand curves), provided tests of the NECESSITY of meaning, rather than NORMATIVE or COLLOQUIAL meaning. In other words, they limit the reader (and the author) from mal-attribution of properties that occur in normative and colloquial, and particular, and ‘ignorant’ speech.

    . . .

    USE OF  DISAMBIGUATION, OPERATIONALIZATION, SERIALIZATION,

    What the heck does that mean?

    1. serialize: to arrange (something) in a series.
    2. series: a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another.
    3. From “Disambiguation by serialization by constant relation, and operationalization.”
    4. The constant relation (falsehood, epistemology, morality)
    5. The serialization: ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking…
    6. Where operationalization means converting into a series of subjectively testable human actions thereby producing measurements given the marginal indifference in human action.

    So where |falsehood| is a monodirectional series, |epistemology| is monodirectional loop, and |MORAL| is bidirectional from the center ‘amoral’. This process requires we collect all synonyms and antonyms, organize them by some constant relation into a series of less or more of that constant relation. Why? All words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs) are constructed of dimensions (scales, series of measurements), open to sense, perception, emotion, or action. In most cases the human sense perception spectrum appears to produce no more than five degrees of difference for any measurement, such as “distant past, past, recent past, now.” And there are a number of reasons for this – which is why you can only visualize so many of the same things, remember so many numbers or terms, or discern so many directions etc. In general terms our universe is triangular bias left, forward, bias right, which is our direction of motion. This is also the minimum and maximum necessary decision criteria. If I go deeper it will get too complicated. So I’ll leave it there. So, by disambiguation by inventorying, operationalizing, serializing into sequences we create unambiguous measurements for language that prohibit conflation and ambiguity and therefore errors of inference and deduction, effectively turning language – especially language like english with so many terms – into a system of measurement. By combining this technique of very specific terms (measurements), using operational language that is testable, in promissory form (I Promise that…), absent verb-to-be (meaning “I dunno the condition of existence”) in complete sentences, of complete transactions of changes in state, we convert language to a via-negativa equivalent of a via-positiva programming language with the same test of possibility (compilability) since the ability to compile is a test of disambiguity (yes that’s the secret sauce). By using supply demand tests of statements rather than ideals we end up with the formal economics of human behavior. For example, decidability = demand for infallibility in the context in question.  

    . . .

    USE OF TESTING RECIPROCITY, PROPERTY IN TOTO, TESTIMONY,

    ( … )

    . . .

    USE OF ARROWS? >, <, ->, <-

    —“Can you clarify for me your use of the greater than symbol”– HIERARCHY OF PURPOSE

    1. Logical: The Direction of Serialization, 2. Dependency: Hierarchy of Dependency, 3. Evolution: Evolution of Development 4. Physical Causality: Sequence of Operations. FORMAT

    |CONCEPT| neutral > low > medium > high > upper limit |CONCEPT| upper limit < high <  medium < low <  neutral |CONCEPT|  worst < much worse  < worse < neutral > better > much better > best EXAMPLES: Hierarchy less to more:

    |FALSEHOOD|: Ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > obscurantism > fictionalism > deceit > denial. Direction Less to more in both directions:

    |MORAL|: Evil < immoral < unethical < amoral > ethical > moral > Righteous. Process less to more:

    |EPISTEMOLOGY| Observation > Auto-Association > Free Association > hypothesis > (mind-test) > theory > (action-test) > established theory or law (market-test) > limit discovery (falsification) > repeat (revision) I could write |Falsehood| like this, in code: 

    Define Falsehood( Criteria[] ) Returns Degree as Scalar {
   Return FIT(Criteria, (
       Ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > 
       obscurantism > fictionalism > deceit > denial
       ));
}

    . . .

    USE OF GRAPHS

    A Triangulation: 

    ......................COMPETITION
....................Voluntary Exchange

................Rule of Law of Reciprocity
..............Christian Rule of Law Monarchy
.............. Anglo Classical Liberalism
...............Continental Social Democracy
                  /                   \
Tolerant Civic Nationalism.........Intolerant Civic Nationalism
Christian Fundamentalism ..........National Socialism
                            ___
....Submission-Seduction...........Dominance-Warfare
.......UNIVERSALISM..................PARTICULARISM

      Or many other shapes and tables. A Hierarchy: 

    Human Logical Facility (constant relations) >
…. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) >
…. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) >
…. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) >
…. …. …. …. Math (positional names) >
…. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) >
…. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) >
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) >
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying)
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial
…. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence

    A Comparison: 

    ............Female and Semitic vs Male and European
.....................Dysgenics vs Eugenics
...................Consumption vs Capitalization
...........Private Consumption vs Commons Production
...................Undermining vs Order
..........Approval/Disapproval vs True/False
................Incrementalism vs zero tolerance
.........Plausible Deniability vs Warranty
.........................GSRRM vs Truth Regardless of Cost
......................Critique vs Falsification
........................Pilpul vs Justification
.................False Promise vs Promise
...........Baiting into Hazard vs Offers of Reciprocity
......................One Herd vs Many Packs

      Multi-Hierarchies 

    Burial …
Animism ….
… Sun Tzu Realism ( martial realism)
… … Confucianism (harmony)
… … … Daoism (Tolerance)
… Proto IE Religion
… … Proto Vedic
… … … Hinduism
… … … Zoroastrianism
… … European Sky Father (martial realism)
… … … European Common Law (legal realism)
… … … … Platonism (idealism)
… … … … … Aristotelianism (realism naturalism)
… Proto Semitic
… … Proto Judaism
… … … … Abrahamism <- Zoroastrianism (Authoritarianism)
… … … … … Rabbinical Judaism (Justificationism)
… … … … … Christianity (resistance)
… … … … … … The Augustinian Conflation (compromise)
… … … … … … … Orthodoxy – Catholicism, (settlement)
… … … … … … … … Protestantism, (reformation)
… … … … … … … … … Evangelicalism (folk-religion restoration)
… … … … … … Islam (7th c+)
… … … … … … … Fundamentalist Islam (11-12th c+)

    . . .

    USE OF SEQUENTIAL DECLARATIVE STATEMENTS

    I don’t frequently use the narrative style. In fact almost everything I write is in programmatic style, where one declarative statement follows another, each incrementally adding to the one before it – brick by brick.

    PREMISE OF AN OPTIMUM GOVERNMENT OF MAN 0) A militia consisting of shareholders who reciprocally and unconditionally, insure one another’s property-in-toto from the involuntary imposition of costs by both members and non. 1) A contract (constitution) between those shareholders for that reciprocal insurance, consisting of Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal applicability, absence of discretion through strict construction, with a monarchy as a judge (veto) of last resort. And providing for: 2) A market for polities in which many small polities compete by the production of different commons. (btw: what polities will attract not only the most, but the best women?) 3) A market for the production of commons within any given polity, by exchange between the classes (those with different reproductive strategies, capabilities, and capital interests) … (more) …

    . . .

    USE OF PSEUDOCODE

    Programming is not just a tool for using computers, but it is a new way of thinking that affected mathematics, logic, cognitive science, and now is altering physics. P-Logic consists in the convergence of programming, operationalism (which developed from  praxeology), economics (supply and demand). P-Law consists of the application of P-logic to Reciprocity including that subset of reciprocity we call testimony, or more commonly, truthful speech. We construct P-Law just like a program: 

    Given (conditions)
Given (definitions, imported references)
Whereas (we wish to, achieve some end - "original intent")
Therefore (we shall, within these limits)
By this means (processes, procedures, rules, regulations)
That will result in (results)
And that will expire when (conditions)
And we Counsel (advice)
And We Can Do So Under Law (because)
And We Warranty By (list of due diligence)
And We shall be Liable For (liability, signed by)

    This law is ‘rigorous’ because of the following reasons:

    • We define all properties of man and mankind such that false claims cannot be made.
    • We define testimony and reciprocity such that false and irreciprocal claims cannot be made.
    • We enumerate all rights and obligations such that they are uninterpretable.
    • We require proof by internal construction that the contract or legislation is permissible under the natural law.
    • We require strict construction of complete sentences in operational language producing complete transactions of change in state.
    • (and more)

    =========================== Closing: I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I don’t have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • I asked you for definitions because I don’t understand what you’re saying. If yo

    I asked you for definitions because I don’t understand what you’re saying. If you can give me definitions maybe I can. I mean, what does ‘accept’ mean? What does ‘deny mean/? These are, archaic theological terms. So I don’t understand them.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-26 19:56:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100484883800080387

    Reply addressees: @Constantinus331 @Societisms

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100482528857731082

    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/1100482528857731082

  • Define accept, define deny, define true. I do not know what ‘deny truth’ means.

    Define accept, define deny, define true. I do not know what ‘deny truth’ means. I only know only what ‘truth CAN’ possibly mean, since only the definition I gave you is possible. Strawson(Performative-Promissory) -> Doolittle (Testimonial, Operational, Warrantied, Insured, )

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-26 19:40:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100480641483923457

    Reply addressees: @Constantinus331 @Societisms

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100476464749834243

    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/1100476464749834243

  • AFAIK WE ARE CHANGING FROM “GSRRM” “RRGSM” to produce a more memorable mnemonic.

    AFAIK WE ARE CHANGING FROM “GSRRM” “RRGSM” to produce a more memorable mnemonic.

    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-26 16:03:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100426136155275264

  • AFAIK WE ARE CHANGING FROM “GSRRM” “RRGSM” to produce a more memorable mnemonic.

    AFAIK WE ARE CHANGING FROM “GSRRM” “RRGSM” to produce a more memorable mnemonic.

    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-26 11:03:00 UTC