Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • “How Can I Learn to Communicate Like You Do?”

    There was a time, not so long ago, that this question would have been met with “Why?” lol

    —“How can I learn to communicate like you do? One cannot effectively communicate what is inside without the proper language or outlet to express those things.”— A Friend

    [I] would have to understand you a bit better to know how to answer that. But yes, Propertarianism makes it possible to speak what is in your mind in scientific terms. I think understanding what I teach requires a great deal of knowledge that unfortunately, we are INTENTIONALLY not taught. I suppose that when I offer my class this january, that you can join that and I can help teach it to you. There are a couple of problems learning. 1) learning to think ‘via-negativa’ (in what will make this false) is much harder than how we think today in the ‘via positiva’. 2) learning to describe everything in economic and commercial terms is also somewhat difficult Because doing both of those requires re-training our ‘intuition’ so that you leave behind the supernatural, and moral ages, and speak in scientific terms of the scientific age. Then learning WHY that is true, requires learning ‘the grammars of speech’ which i don’t think is TOO hard, and then learning testimonialism (the grammar of falsification). It’s basically like learning a law degree. But the difference is, that ‘once you see the world this way’ it will all fit together and much more of it will be clear to you. At that point you will be able to ‘speak what is in your mind’ because you will have the vocabulary for it.

  • “How Can I Learn to Communicate Like You Do?”

    There was a time, not so long ago, that this question would have been met with “Why?” lol

    —“How can I learn to communicate like you do? One cannot effectively communicate what is inside without the proper language or outlet to express those things.”— A Friend

    [I] would have to understand you a bit better to know how to answer that. But yes, Propertarianism makes it possible to speak what is in your mind in scientific terms. I think understanding what I teach requires a great deal of knowledge that unfortunately, we are INTENTIONALLY not taught. I suppose that when I offer my class this january, that you can join that and I can help teach it to you. There are a couple of problems learning. 1) learning to think ‘via-negativa’ (in what will make this false) is much harder than how we think today in the ‘via positiva’. 2) learning to describe everything in economic and commercial terms is also somewhat difficult Because doing both of those requires re-training our ‘intuition’ so that you leave behind the supernatural, and moral ages, and speak in scientific terms of the scientific age. Then learning WHY that is true, requires learning ‘the grammars of speech’ which i don’t think is TOO hard, and then learning testimonialism (the grammar of falsification). It’s basically like learning a law degree. But the difference is, that ‘once you see the world this way’ it will all fit together and much more of it will be clear to you. At that point you will be able to ‘speak what is in your mind’ because you will have the vocabulary for it.

  • “How can I learn to communicate like you do? One cannot effectively communicate

    —“How can I learn to communicate like you do? One cannot effectively communicate what is inside without the proper language or outlet to express those things.”— A Friend

    I would have to understand you a bit better to know how to answer that. But yes, Propertarianism makes it possible to speak what is in your mind in scientific terms.

    I think understanding what I teach requires a great deal of knowledge that unfortunately, we are INTENTIONALLY not taught.

    I suppose that when I offer my class this january, that you can join that and I can help teach it to you.

    There are a couple of problems learning.

    1) learning to think ‘via-negativa’ (in what will make this false) is much harder than how we think today in the ‘via positiva’.

    2) learning to describe everything in economic and commercial terms is also somewhat difficult

    Because doing both of those requires re-training our ‘intuition’ so that you leave behind the supernatural, and moral ages, and speak in scientific terms of the scientific age.

    Then learning WHY that is true, requires learning ‘the grammars of speech’ which i don’t think is TOO hard, and then learning testimonialism (the grammar of falsification).

    It’s basically like learning a law degree. But the difference is, that ‘once you see the world this way’ it will all fit together and much more of it will be clear to you.

    At that point you will be able to ‘speak what is in your mind’ because you will have the vocabulary for it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-02 16:47:00 UTC

  • “Curt: Is Your Language Pseudo-Scientific?”

    October 30th, 2018 11:25 AM “CURT: IS YOUR LANGUAGE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC?” (no, but it’s a very good question that deserves an answer)

    —-“I enjoy your humanist stance Curt Doolittle and with most of your ideas I find myself in concordance. My only caveat with your performance is this psuedo-scientific language – almost every other word is some phrase or term of references, especially from the realm of psychology. “— Christian Kalafut

    Christian, Excellent (not unique, but rare) and worthy criticism. Well done. This (vocabulary) is always a problem when trying to provide the only non-nonsensical model of philosophy, which is to reorganize properties, categories, relations, and values in response to advances in knowledge. Every theorist (‘Reformer’ is my prefer term) who attempts to increase the coherence between science and vernacular, across the fields is faced with the challenge of new terms (neologisms), redefining terms, and preserving terms, and doing so sufficiently that he’s free of criticism. To unite all the fields I had to create a common language, and so I appropriated the terms from each that were the ‘least wrong’ and created definitions in series to deflate them. I rely on one spectrum from cognitive science (psychosis <-> autism) by Baron Cohen, and I map demonstrated interests (that which we demonstrate we treat as property by defending), -> to moral bias (Hadit), -> to stages of the prey drive, -> to reward systems, -> to personality traits, -> to gender differences in brain structure resulting in that spectrum. This changes the content (model) of the behavioral vocabulary in ‘psychology’ from projection(imagination via sympathy and conformity) to demonstration (observation: science, and a division of cognitive labor). Thereby reforming psychology from projection to demonstration to physical construction and operation (neural economy) This cognitive division of labor is what I use as the basis of reforming ‘sociology’ under what I call Compatibilism(market) rather than Equality(monopoly) – and the competition between the classes, which serves as a further extension of perception and cognition to the group, wherein the group performs ‘calculation’ of ‘the good (the interest of the polity)’ by continuous tests of voluntary cooperation (reciprocity) – thereby EXPANDING the neural economy from the individual to the group, tribe, nation, civilization, mankind. And to ameliorate this competition between individuals and groups at all scales i use international law (demonstrated means of voluntary cooperation) under reciprocity as the ‘equals sign’ of human action. This results in ‘Natural Law’ as the means of assisting in calculation (cooperation at scale). And it changes from the via positiva of conformity and suppression of individual preference to preserve costly cooperation (antiquity) to the via negativa of conflict suppression and increase in individual preference to take advantage of cheap cooperation (modernity). This changes the discipline we call sociology to observation of agents with partial information thereby uniting psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy – providing a single language and model of all human behavior from the neurological to the international. As far as I know, further increases in the precision of this model will have no impact on decidability provided by it just as newtonian physics is sufficient for all human scale decidability despite increases in precision provided by einstein physics at prior and post human scale. And this is sufficient because humans can only act at human scale, regardless of their perceptions. So, while it is takes a HUGE vocabulary reformation (models of properties, categories, relations, and values) to change from the projections to demonstrations, and from monopoly to markets of behavior, and from static consensus to evolutionary calculation – thereby altering our ENTIRE body of knowledge to reflect the model of ECONOMICS(darwin/markets/equilibrium) that is true, rather than MATHEMATICS (christian/monopolies/equalities) that is false. So yes, as always, in every era (rational(Greek), empirical(early british), scientific(Darwin – european), technological(Turing-Chomsky-anglo american), and now ‘economic-neurological’ (me)), we require a reformation of our network of ideas, and yes it is a costly reformation, because it requires a lot of re-learning. I don’t claim to be a great communicator. I just claim to be correct. 　

    —“My only complaint aside, you’re very interesting and I would love to chat with you!”—

    Any time. 　

    —“Final ?: Have you read Barzun?”—

    I don’t’ find essayists interesting, because i am painfully empirical, and while I can absorb information endlessly I get very ‘tired’ with sentimental prose including value judgements loading and framing. So while I know of some of his ideas, I don’t find them helpful at my level of inquiry (free association, reason, calculation, and computation). In general I just read science and history and unfortunately not only have I lost the ability to suspend disbelief in fiction, I have lost the ability to suspend judgement in essay form, and in both cases, I find it tedious and painful (like listening to gossip.) That isn’t a good thing but it’s a consequence of doing my work for so many years. So that’s why I tell people, I do science, write law, using the rhetorical structure of philosophy and do so to end deceit by pseudoscience (sophism of the technical), philosophy(sophism of the rational) and theology (sophism of the mythological), Cheers.

  • Propertarianism: Our Definition of ‘Grammar’

    October 30th, 2018 11:12 AM PROPERTARIANISM: OUR DEFINITION OF ‘GRAMMAR’ (very important)

    –“Curt, How do you use grammar differently from the norm?”– A Friend.

    CURRENT: – Chomsky’s Grammar Facility (biological) of “Recursive Disambiguation” …. – Languages …. …. – Vocabulary …. …. …. – Semantics …. …. – Grammar …. …. …. – Phonology, Morphology, Syntax … This is the traditional undrestanding of grammar, even though the original term referred to a book containing the rules of the given language. PROPERTARIANISM “The Grammars” as I use them: – Chomsky’s Grammar Facility (biological) of “CONTINUOUS Recursive Disambiguation”. …. – The DIMENSIONAL Grammars (spectrum of dimensions allowed) …. …. – Languages …. …. …. – Vocabulary LIMITED by dimensional grammar. …. …. …. …. – Paradigm (network of constant relations) …. …. …. …. …. – Semantics LIMITED by dimensional grammar …. …. …. – TRANSACTIONAL Grammar …. …. …. …. – Phonology, Morphology, Syntax … etc. WHERE The DIMENSIONAL GRAMMARS Consist of no less than: – identity (property), logic (consistency) – arithmetic and accounting – mathematics, geometry, calculus, statistics – algorithm, computation, transaction, sentience, consciousness, reason, calculation – physics , chemistry, biology-ecology – contract, testimony, law – psychology, sociology, politics, economics – ordinary language (conversation) – narration, – story telling (plot) – myth, parable, (lesson) – fictionalisms (ideal-mental, magical-physical, supernatural-emotional) – Deceits (loading, framing, obscurantism … etc.) AND WHERE Each ‘grammar’ consist of the means of testing internal consistency (decidability) in the process of speech (continuous recursive disambiguation) while producing transactions (descriptions of changes in state). Cheers Curt Doolittle

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    October 30th, 2018 10:19 AM WHY WILL PEOPLE WILL RESIST PROPERTARIANISM? (defense of investment in fraud) [P]ropertarianism: All words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and arguments consist of measurements accumulating in transactions. Most importantly, propertarian argument makes visible ALL pretense of knowledge – falsifying any claim made with pretense of knowledge. Reciprocity is a value independent test of decidability. With these two tools we can falsify all fraudulent speech (argument). That’s why people FEAR propertarianism. Propertarianism serves its purpose as a formal logic of social science from metaphysics, through epistemology through psychology, sociology, ethics, law, politics group evolutionary strategy and aesthetics. Propertarianism is ‘frightening’ to the ‘frauds’ precisely because it will restore the market for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs by externality upon others. This will deny those who use false language to obtain status and therefore organize non-market action and restore all means of theft. Worse (for the frauds), it eliminates their ability to create false self image and false status signaling thereby ending the competition in the signal (status) economy by fraud. This is why people will resist propertarianism. Because it suppresses lies. Unlike abrahamism, marxism, postmodernism and feminism which enable lies – particularly when industrialized lying was made possible by media and the academy, which could then be used by the state to deceive in order to obtain POWER.

  • The Grammar Used Tells You Everything About the Argument Used.

    October 30th, 2018 10:07 AM IT’S NOT COMPLICATED:

    Law       (Science)............= Testimony (Measurements)
Philosophy(Rationalism)........= Excuse    (Justifications)
Theology  (Fictionalism).......= Fiction   (Deception)

    The Grammar Used Tells You Everything About The Argument Used.

  • “Curt: Is Your Language Pseudo-Scientific?”

    October 30th, 2018 11:25 AM “CURT: IS YOUR LANGUAGE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC?” (no, but it’s a very good question that deserves an answer)

    —-“I enjoy your humanist stance Curt Doolittle and with most of your ideas I find myself in concordance. My only caveat with your performance is this psuedo-scientific language – almost every other word is some phrase or term of references, especially from the realm of psychology. “— Christian Kalafut

    Christian, Excellent (not unique, but rare) and worthy criticism. Well done. This (vocabulary) is always a problem when trying to provide the only non-nonsensical model of philosophy, which is to reorganize properties, categories, relations, and values in response to advances in knowledge. Every theorist (‘Reformer’ is my prefer term) who attempts to increase the coherence between science and vernacular, across the fields is faced with the challenge of new terms (neologisms), redefining terms, and preserving terms, and doing so sufficiently that he’s free of criticism. To unite all the fields I had to create a common language, and so I appropriated the terms from each that were the ‘least wrong’ and created definitions in series to deflate them. I rely on one spectrum from cognitive science (psychosis <-> autism) by Baron Cohen, and I map demonstrated interests (that which we demonstrate we treat as property by defending), -> to moral bias (Hadit), -> to stages of the prey drive, -> to reward systems, -> to personality traits, -> to gender differences in brain structure resulting in that spectrum. This changes the content (model) of the behavioral vocabulary in ‘psychology’ from projection(imagination via sympathy and conformity) to demonstration (observation: science, and a division of cognitive labor). Thereby reforming psychology from projection to demonstration to physical construction and operation (neural economy) This cognitive division of labor is what I use as the basis of reforming ‘sociology’ under what I call Compatibilism(market) rather than Equality(monopoly) – and the competition between the classes, which serves as a further extension of perception and cognition to the group, wherein the group performs ‘calculation’ of ‘the good (the interest of the polity)’ by continuous tests of voluntary cooperation (reciprocity) – thereby EXPANDING the neural economy from the individual to the group, tribe, nation, civilization, mankind. And to ameliorate this competition between individuals and groups at all scales i use international law (demonstrated means of voluntary cooperation) under reciprocity as the ‘equals sign’ of human action. This results in ‘Natural Law’ as the means of assisting in calculation (cooperation at scale). And it changes from the via positiva of conformity and suppression of individual preference to preserve costly cooperation (antiquity) to the via negativa of conflict suppression and increase in individual preference to take advantage of cheap cooperation (modernity). This changes the discipline we call sociology to observation of agents with partial information thereby uniting psychology, sociology, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy – providing a single language and model of all human behavior from the neurological to the international. As far as I know, further increases in the precision of this model will have no impact on decidability provided by it just as newtonian physics is sufficient for all human scale decidability despite increases in precision provided by einstein physics at prior and post human scale. And this is sufficient because humans can only act at human scale, regardless of their perceptions. So, while it is takes a HUGE vocabulary reformation (models of properties, categories, relations, and values) to change from the projections to demonstrations, and from monopoly to markets of behavior, and from static consensus to evolutionary calculation – thereby altering our ENTIRE body of knowledge to reflect the model of ECONOMICS(darwin/markets/equilibrium) that is true, rather than MATHEMATICS (christian/monopolies/equalities) that is false. So yes, as always, in every era (rational(Greek), empirical(early british), scientific(Darwin – european), technological(Turing-Chomsky-anglo american), and now ‘economic-neurological’ (me)), we require a reformation of our network of ideas, and yes it is a costly reformation, because it requires a lot of re-learning. I don’t claim to be a great communicator. I just claim to be correct. 　

    —“My only complaint aside, you’re very interesting and I would love to chat with you!”—

    Any time. 　

    —“Final ?: Have you read Barzun?”—

    I don’t’ find essayists interesting, because i am painfully empirical, and while I can absorb information endlessly I get very ‘tired’ with sentimental prose including value judgements loading and framing. So while I know of some of his ideas, I don’t find them helpful at my level of inquiry (free association, reason, calculation, and computation). In general I just read science and history and unfortunately not only have I lost the ability to suspend disbelief in fiction, I have lost the ability to suspend judgement in essay form, and in both cases, I find it tedious and painful (like listening to gossip.) That isn’t a good thing but it’s a consequence of doing my work for so many years. So that’s why I tell people, I do science, write law, using the rhetorical structure of philosophy and do so to end deceit by pseudoscience (sophism of the technical), philosophy(sophism of the rational) and theology (sophism of the mythological), Cheers.

  • Propertarianism: Our Definition of ‘Grammar’

    October 30th, 2018 11:12 AM PROPERTARIANISM: OUR DEFINITION OF ‘GRAMMAR’ (very important)

    –“Curt, How do you use grammar differently from the norm?”– A Friend.

    CURRENT: – Chomsky’s Grammar Facility (biological) of “Recursive Disambiguation” …. – Languages …. …. – Vocabulary …. …. …. – Semantics …. …. – Grammar …. …. …. – Phonology, Morphology, Syntax … This is the traditional undrestanding of grammar, even though the original term referred to a book containing the rules of the given language. PROPERTARIANISM “The Grammars” as I use them: – Chomsky’s Grammar Facility (biological) of “CONTINUOUS Recursive Disambiguation”. …. – The DIMENSIONAL Grammars (spectrum of dimensions allowed) …. …. – Languages …. …. …. – Vocabulary LIMITED by dimensional grammar. …. …. …. …. – Paradigm (network of constant relations) …. …. …. …. …. – Semantics LIMITED by dimensional grammar …. …. …. – TRANSACTIONAL Grammar …. …. …. …. – Phonology, Morphology, Syntax … etc. WHERE The DIMENSIONAL GRAMMARS Consist of no less than: – identity (property), logic (consistency) – arithmetic and accounting – mathematics, geometry, calculus, statistics – algorithm, computation, transaction, sentience, consciousness, reason, calculation – physics , chemistry, biology-ecology – contract, testimony, law – psychology, sociology, politics, economics – ordinary language (conversation) – narration, – story telling (plot) – myth, parable, (lesson) – fictionalisms (ideal-mental, magical-physical, supernatural-emotional) – Deceits (loading, framing, obscurantism … etc.) AND WHERE Each ‘grammar’ consist of the means of testing internal consistency (decidability) in the process of speech (continuous recursive disambiguation) while producing transactions (descriptions of changes in state). Cheers Curt Doolittle

  • The Grammar Used Tells You Everything About the Argument Used.

    October 30th, 2018 10:07 AM IT’S NOT COMPLICATED:

    Law       (Science)............= Testimony (Measurements)
Philosophy(Rationalism)........= Excuse    (Justifications)
Theology  (Fictionalism).......= Fiction   (Deception)

    The Grammar Used Tells You Everything About The Argument Used.