Theme: Grammar

  • Um. You know. If i asked you “How would you go about creating a value-neutral, c

    Um. You know. If i asked you “How would you go about creating a value-neutral, cross-disciplinary, fully commensurable language that could survive in court under testimony in all matters of conflict.”, I’ll bet you can’t even begin to imagine where to start and how to go about it.

    So yeah, that’s Propertarianism (or that’s the spectrum within Propertarianism, including vitruvianism->metaphysics, acquisitionism->psychology, compatibilism->sociology, propertarianism->ethics, testimonialism->epistemology, and algorithmic natural law->politics). And it includes reformation of every one of the grammars (disciplines).

    So of COURSE you aren’t going to understand THAT LANGUAGE off the bat. You aren’t going to understand how to convert from IDEAL language (pretense of knowledge) we use today to REAL language (demonstrating knowledge).

    Worse you are not going to understand how to convert your thinking from simple human scale justification, to post human scale via negativa falsification, and finally into well formed statements in operational language.

    So please don’t waste my time until you catch up to the people who HAVE done so.

    Ok. Yeah. Thanks. sigh…


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-08 15:16:00 UTC

  • Of Course You Aren’t Going to Understand P Off the Bat.

    Um. You know. If i asked you “How would you go about creating a value-neutral, cross-disciplinary, fully commensurable language that could survive in court under testimony in all matters of conflict.”, I’ll bet you can’t even begin to imagine where to start and how to go about it. So yeah, that’s Propertarianism (or that’s the spectrum within Propertarianism, including vitruvianism->metaphysics, acquisitionism->psychology, compatibilism->sociology, propertarianism->ethics, testimonialism->epistemology, and algorithmic natural law->politics). And it includes reformation of every one of the grammars (disciplines). So of COURSE you aren’t going to understand THAT LANGUAGE off the bat. You aren’t going to understand how to convert from IDEAL language (pretense of knowledge) we use today to REAL language (demonstrating knowledge). Worse you are not going to understand how to convert your thinking from simple human scale justification, to post human scale via negativa falsification, and finally into well formed statements in operational language. So please don’t waste my time until you catch up to the people who HAVE done so. Ok. Yeah. Thanks. sigh…

  • Of Course You Aren’t Going to Understand P Off the Bat.

    Um. You know. If i asked you “How would you go about creating a value-neutral, cross-disciplinary, fully commensurable language that could survive in court under testimony in all matters of conflict.”, I’ll bet you can’t even begin to imagine where to start and how to go about it. So yeah, that’s Propertarianism (or that’s the spectrum within Propertarianism, including vitruvianism->metaphysics, acquisitionism->psychology, compatibilism->sociology, propertarianism->ethics, testimonialism->epistemology, and algorithmic natural law->politics). And it includes reformation of every one of the grammars (disciplines). So of COURSE you aren’t going to understand THAT LANGUAGE off the bat. You aren’t going to understand how to convert from IDEAL language (pretense of knowledge) we use today to REAL language (demonstrating knowledge). Worse you are not going to understand how to convert your thinking from simple human scale justification, to post human scale via negativa falsification, and finally into well formed statements in operational language. So please don’t waste my time until you catch up to the people who HAVE done so. Ok. Yeah. Thanks. sigh…

  • ( Just finished a short interview with Richard Nikoley on honesty, truth, gramma

    ( Just finished a short interview with Richard Nikoley on honesty, truth, grammars. He says it will be up in the next day or so. Had fun. )


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-07 18:54:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1060244072517001216

  • WHAT DEMAND DOES POSTMODERN THOUGHT SATISFY? What Demand does Postmodern thought

    WHAT DEMAND DOES POSTMODERN THOUGHT SATISFY?

    What Demand does Postmodern thought satisfy?

    (FYI: Definition: A “Grammar”: rules of continuous, recursive, disambiguation, within a given set of semantic limitations.”)

    We produce arguments in their constituent …

    – Paradigms,

    – Frames, and ..

    – Ontologies,

    … using …

    – Names,

    – Relations,

    – Values,

    – Methods (operations) and their

    – cumulative imaginary (forecast) models (worlds)

    … to satisfy demand.

    We have little control over that demand as far as I know. But whether or not we do, we generate demand.

    But what demand do the various degrees of correspondence (and non-correspondence) with our three:

    – Physical-Sensory -> or;

    – Emotional-Intuitive ->, or;

    – Intellectual-Rational

    … faculties provide?

    And under what …

    – Geographic -> ,

    – Economic -> ,

    – Demographic -> ,

    – Political -> ,

    – Social

    … conditions?

    We have demonstrated an ability to speak in various grammars: using the …

    – Real-Pseudoscientific-Magical ->

    – Historical-Literary-Mythical ->

    – Ideal-Pseudorational-Sophistic -> and;

    – Supernatural-Theological-Occult,

    … meaning, in the …

    – Deflated (math, logic, algorithm, protocol, process) ->

    – Descriptive, (testimony) ->

    – Narrated, (story) ->

    – Inflated, ( fiction ) -> and;

    – Conflated,

    … models of comparison.

    Why do we choose the grammars (paradigms of communication)?

    Why do …

    – Abrahamists (theological) -> ,

    – Marxists (pseudoscientific) -> ,

    – Postmoderns ( pseudorational) -> ,

    – Feminists (mythical)

    … choose those grammars.

    And why do …

    – mathematicians and logicians (ideal) -> ,

    – scientists (real and historical) -> ,

    – jurists (real and historical) -> ,

    – and writers (literary)

    …choose their grammars?

    The answer is not the first series that will occur to you.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-07 08:29:00 UTC

  • Postmodernism Is Just Lying. Here Is Why

    POSTMODERNISM IS JUST LYING. HERE IS WHY. Well, we differ in tolerance for lying. I have none. You not only tolerate it, but seek to employ it at every opportunity you can get away with. So, I solve for truth. You solve for reasonableness. I use the word ‘true’ meaning decidable independent of preference. You use the word true meaning ‘preferable’ because you conflate the true with the ‘reasonable’ (preferable) – and you can get away with it. You do this because you can’t help yourself. You can’t help yourself for a combination of genetic and cultural reasons. Your ethic is ‘what can I get away with’, the aristocratic (and my) ethic is ‘what is true regardless of the consequences’. Postmodernism holds “what can I get away with normatively and therefore escape stratification and punishment for it, and what can I get away with claiming is ‘true’ and still escape ostracization and punishment for it. So yes, it says get rid of European (‘aryan’) morals, get rid of christian morals (germanized christian), and let loose female, french, and jewish non-morality (whatever I can get away with).. Why? Because Nietzsche was looking for a positive morality when in fact, as the aryans, europeans, romans, and germanics understood, there is no such thing. Morality is a negative (prohibition), and as such we have negative LAW, rather than positive philosophy and positive religion, and positive cults. You can see this in the major works of the civilizations, where the primitive civilizations of the semitic region imposed authoritarian positivism, the indian positive rulership, the chinese collective duty, and the europeans negative law – leaving a LOT of philosophers to propose CHOICES within that law. Rather than ONE SOLUTION CONFLATED with RULE. The Europeans/Romans/Germanics (Aryans) stated there was no positive morality, only a negative morality of reciprocity, leaving the MARKET for positive moralities to adapt to the needs of niches (classes). The only people to grasp this are the english and the americans – and even they failed to maintain indoctrination into it because they did not fully understand it (which is my job – to make it fully understood). But the jews, the french, and white anglo women, have all adopted the female strategy, of ‘what can I get away with’ rather than ‘what can i do without getting away with anything’. All positivas are choice. The only TRUTH AND MORALITY IS NEGATIVE. Everything else is just choice. Like I said. You only have to open your mouth for us to identify whether you are a positivist and parasite, or a negativist and producer.

  • What Demand Does Postmodern Thought Satisfy?

    WHAT DEMAND DOES POSTMODERN THOUGHT SATISFY? What Demand does Postmodern thought satisfy? (FYI: Definition: A “Grammar”: rules of continuous, recursive, disambiguation, within a given set of semantic limitations.”) We produce arguments in their constituent …

    • Paradigms,
    • Frames, and ..
    • Ontologies,

    … using …

    • Names,
    • Relations,
    • Values,
    • Methods (operations) and their
    • cumulative imaginary (forecast) models (worlds)

    … to satisfy demand. We have little control over that demand as far as I know. But whether or not we do, we generate demand. But what demand do the various degrees of correspondence (and non-correspondence) with our three:

    • Physical-Sensory -> or;
    • Emotional-Intuitive ->, or;
    • Intellectual-Rational

    … faculties provide? And under what …

    • Geographic -> ,
    • Economic -> ,
    • Demographic -> ,
    • Political -> ,
    • Social

    … conditions? We have demonstrated an ability to speak in various grammars: using the …

    • Real-Pseudoscientific-Magical ->
    • Historical-Literary-Mythical ->
    • Ideal-Pseudorational-Sophistic -> and;
    • Supernatural-Theological-Occult,

    … meaning, in the …

    • Deflated (math, logic, algorithm, protocol, process) ->
    • Descriptive, (testimony) ->
    • Narrated, (story) ->
    • Inflated, ( fiction ) -> and;
    • Conflated,

    … models of comparison. Why do we choose the grammars (paradigms of communication)?
    Why do …

    • Abrahamists (theological) -> ,
    • Marxists (pseudoscientific) -> ,
    • Postmoderns ( pseudorational) -> ,
    • Feminists (mythical)

    … choose those grammars. And why do …

    • mathematicians and logicians (ideal) -> ,
    • scientists (real and historical) -> ,
    • jurists (real and historical) -> ,
    • and writers (literary)

    …choose their grammars? The answer is not the first series that will occur to you. Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • What Demand Does Postmodern Thought Satisfy?

    WHAT DEMAND DOES POSTMODERN THOUGHT SATISFY? What Demand does Postmodern thought satisfy? (FYI: Definition: A “Grammar”: rules of continuous, recursive, disambiguation, within a given set of semantic limitations.”) We produce arguments in their constituent …

    • Paradigms,
    • Frames, and ..
    • Ontologies,

    … using …

    • Names,
    • Relations,
    • Values,
    • Methods (operations) and their
    • cumulative imaginary (forecast) models (worlds)

    … to satisfy demand. We have little control over that demand as far as I know. But whether or not we do, we generate demand. But what demand do the various degrees of correspondence (and non-correspondence) with our three:

    • Physical-Sensory -> or;
    • Emotional-Intuitive ->, or;
    • Intellectual-Rational

    … faculties provide? And under what …

    • Geographic -> ,
    • Economic -> ,
    • Demographic -> ,
    • Political -> ,
    • Social

    … conditions? We have demonstrated an ability to speak in various grammars: using the …

    • Real-Pseudoscientific-Magical ->
    • Historical-Literary-Mythical ->
    • Ideal-Pseudorational-Sophistic -> and;
    • Supernatural-Theological-Occult,

    … meaning, in the …

    • Deflated (math, logic, algorithm, protocol, process) ->
    • Descriptive, (testimony) ->
    • Narrated, (story) ->
    • Inflated, ( fiction ) -> and;
    • Conflated,

    … models of comparison. Why do we choose the grammars (paradigms of communication)?
    Why do …

    • Abrahamists (theological) -> ,
    • Marxists (pseudoscientific) -> ,
    • Postmoderns ( pseudorational) -> ,
    • Feminists (mythical)

    … choose those grammars. And why do …

    • mathematicians and logicians (ideal) -> ,
    • scientists (real and historical) -> ,
    • jurists (real and historical) -> ,
    • and writers (literary)

    …choose their grammars? The answer is not the first series that will occur to you. Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • INTELLECTUAL CATASTROPHE OF SPECIALIZATION (and the import of a universal langua

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/10/04/the-intellectual-catastrophe-of-specialization-and-the-cure-for-it-in-education/THE INTELLECTUAL CATASTROPHE OF SPECIALIZATION

    (and the import of a universal language of testimony)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 09:01:00 UTC

  • “Literacy: means ‘capable of reading and writing’. Being “Illiterate’ means inca

    “Literacy: means ‘capable of reading and writing’.

    Being “Illiterate’ means incapable of reading and writing.

    Being “Literate” means ‘Well Read’ OR ‘he can read and write’.

    This is another one of those terms where we need a demarcation to prevent conflation.

    illiterate “can’t read” > literate – “can read” > “literate – well read”.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-06 08:55:00 UTC