Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • September 21st, 2018 11:46 AM AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLA

    September 21st, 2018 11:46 AM AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLACIES OF IDEALISM, CONFLATION, AND PRETENSE OF KNOWLEDGE [We] can speak truthfully, we can claim others speak truthfully, but it is our speech about existence, or experience, or the imaginary that ‘is true’ (coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete) or not. No such thing as ‘truth’ exists that is not a promise by someone that a statement is coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete ENOUGH to satisfy the demand for infallibility. Existence just exists. It’s state continuously changes (entropy). We can make statements about some state or change in state over some period of time (periodicity, frame), but only our promise to the coherence, consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, and completeness can be claimed as ‘true’ because that is the meaning of truth: testimony. As to logic, logical must and only can me, constant relations (consistency) between two or more properties (identity) or states (logic). (Because that is all that neurons do: test for differences or their absence as differences.) Therefore a statement is falsifiable. It is false (certain), true (possible), or undecidable (unknown). if a statement is undecidable, then deductions from it are undecidable, but in formal logic we state that the undecidable is to be treated as false.

  • September 21st, 2018 11:11 AM LANGUAGE IS CALCULATING WITH MORE DIMENSIONS (wort

    September 21st, 2018 11:11 AM LANGUAGE IS CALCULATING WITH MORE DIMENSIONS
    (worth repeating) [W]e tend to think of mathematics as calculation (it is) but language is also a form of calculation, and we have just (or I have just) begun to understand that language is a means of calculating (transforming inputs and outputs) in a market (competition) for signaling and influence, that produces continuous improvements in knowledge IF not impeded by error (supernatural, magical, ideal) all of which prohibit precision and increase error counter to the natural, scientific, and operational descriptions.

  • September 21st, 2018 6:45 PM —“One of things that led me to follow you and the

    September 21st, 2018 6:45 PM

    —“One of things that led me to follow you and the other guys on here is the way in which your use of operational speech is clear and simple to understand. But what I’ve learned through trying to contribute a few comments here and there, is that writing in this way is not easy. There’s a cost involved. Constructing arguments operationally and ensuring they are free from error, bias etc takes time and effort (and I make no pretense of being any good at this yet). No wonder the left takes the cheap and easy route of using lies.”—- Andy Lunn

  • September 21st, 2018 11:46 AM AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLA

    September 21st, 2018 11:46 AM AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLACIES OF IDEALISM, CONFLATION, AND PRETENSE OF KNOWLEDGE [We] can speak truthfully, we can claim others speak truthfully, but it is our speech about existence, or experience, or the imaginary that ‘is true’ (coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete) or not. No such thing as ‘truth’ exists that is not a promise by someone that a statement is coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete ENOUGH to satisfy the demand for infallibility. Existence just exists. It’s state continuously changes (entropy). We can make statements about some state or change in state over some period of time (periodicity, frame), but only our promise to the coherence, consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, and completeness can be claimed as ‘true’ because that is the meaning of truth: testimony. As to logic, logical must and only can me, constant relations (consistency) between two or more properties (identity) or states (logic). (Because that is all that neurons do: test for differences or their absence as differences.) Therefore a statement is falsifiable. It is false (certain), true (possible), or undecidable (unknown). if a statement is undecidable, then deductions from it are undecidable, but in formal logic we state that the undecidable is to be treated as false.

  • September 21st, 2018 11:11 AM LANGUAGE IS CALCULATING WITH MORE DIMENSIONS (wort

    September 21st, 2018 11:11 AM LANGUAGE IS CALCULATING WITH MORE DIMENSIONS
    (worth repeating) [W]e tend to think of mathematics as calculation (it is) but language is also a form of calculation, and we have just (or I have just) begun to understand that language is a means of calculating (transforming inputs and outputs) in a market (competition) for signaling and influence, that produces continuous improvements in knowledge IF not impeded by error (supernatural, magical, ideal) all of which prohibit precision and increase error counter to the natural, scientific, and operational descriptions.

  • JOSLIN ON GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGY (POSTMODERN) Truth pertains to truth bearance

    JOSLIN ON GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGY (POSTMODERN)

    Truth pertains to truth bearance (transmission of a claim which can be tested for “true-falseness”.)

    Meaning pertains to coherence to a frame.

    They can coexist, but truth pertains only to coherence with the existential frame (does it exist). Because it has this quality of coherence (to existence), we can ignore the limit (that it is limited to the existential frame) and then argue it on the merits of meaning.

    Meaningful statements may or may not be truth carriers – declarations on the state of affairs of existence, by definition, must carry truth or they are not declarations on the state of affairs of existence… they are not declarative statements.

    The declarative and truth pertain to one frame – that being the existential frame (does it exist or not).

    Dismissing this limit is what seals the opportunity to lie.

    ====

    To Expand on what Bill Said:

    Truth: the one most parsimonious frame of continuous, complet decidability.

    Gans is a marxist postmodernist in the french model, picking up after girard, and combining his ‘memes’ with chomsky’s generative grammar. Otherwise its just pete and repeat.

    The authoritarians cant use truth. The anti-darwinists can’t use truth. The irreciprocalists can’t use truth, so they follow the social constructionist method, which Girard argues is effectively a ‘frame war’ where parties compete for the best lies.

    Since such frames are not decidable only internally coherent (not even consistent), and not correspondent, there is no method of defeating them except by either superior lies (better market service of fantasy), or truth and law.

    Since truth is decidable and law is decidable it is possible to prosecute all frames other than truth, through coherence, consistency, correspondence, rationality, reciprocity and completeness, and it’s good.

    Nothing that can be produced by fraud cannot be produced by truthful contract. SO the only reason to lie is to avoid reciprocity and contract.

    Feminine justificationism of anything. Male adjudication of anything. conformity and comfort, truth and discomfort.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-19 17:53:00 UTC

  • People (women in particular) ameliorate differences through language and signal

    People (women in particular) ameliorate differences through language and signal variation but do not vary in their moral and political biases. Men do so far less. People demonstrate overestimation of similarities, and overestimation of their cognitive abilities. Agency differs.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-19 12:17:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042387133506482177

    Reply addressees: @HPluckrose

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1041127586900914177

    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/1041127586900914177

  • Idiomatic and Ostensive vs Imperative and Declarative.

    “Privileging the Meaningful Over the Truthful Allows One to Discount the Declarative and Secure the Opportunity to Lie.”

    by Bill Joslin (genius) [I]n Ganz’s terms, Generative Anthropology is idiomatic and ostensive (also speculative) whereas Propertarianism is imperative and declarative. What allows for the apparent contradictions is not accounting for the inquisitive (questions as a distinct set opposed to a subset of the imperative). Identifying what question one attempts to answer distinguishes the meaningful from the truthful and why these are not always interchangeable.Privileging the meaningful over the truthful allows one to discount the declarative and secure the opportunity to lie. ( CD: color me awed )

  • Idiomatic and Ostensive vs Imperative and Declarative.

    “Privileging the Meaningful Over the Truthful Allows One to Discount the Declarative and Secure the Opportunity to Lie.”

    by Bill Joslin (genius) [I]n Ganz’s terms, Generative Anthropology is idiomatic and ostensive (also speculative) whereas Propertarianism is imperative and declarative. What allows for the apparent contradictions is not accounting for the inquisitive (questions as a distinct set opposed to a subset of the imperative). Identifying what question one attempts to answer distinguishes the meaningful from the truthful and why these are not always interchangeable.Privileging the meaningful over the truthful allows one to discount the declarative and secure the opportunity to lie. ( CD: color me awed )

  • Joslin on Generative Anthropology (postmodern)

    September 19th, 2018 5:53 PM JOSLIN ON GENERATIVE ANTHROPOLOGY (POSTMODERN)

    [T]ruth pertains to truth bearance (transmission of a claim which can be tested for “true-falseness”.) Meaning pertains to coherence to a frame. They can coexist, but truth pertains only to coherence with the existential frame (does it exist). Because it has this quality of coherence (to existence), we can ignore the limit (that it is limited to the existential frame) and then argue it on the merits of meaning. Meaningful statements may or may not be truth carriers – declarations on the state of affairs of existence, by definition, must carry truth or they are not declarations on the state of affairs of existence… they are not declarative statements. The declarative and truth pertain to one frame – that being the existential frame (does it exist or not). Dismissing this limit is what seals the opportunity to lie.

    ==== To Expand on what Bill Said: Truth: the one most parsimonious frame of continuous, complet decidability. Gans is a marxist postmodernist in the french model, picking up after girard, and combining his ‘memes’ with chomsky’s generative grammar. Otherwise its just pete and repeat. The authoritarians cant use truth. The anti-darwinists can’t use truth. The irreciprocalists can’t use truth, so they follow the social constructionist method, which Girard argues is effectively a ‘frame war’ where parties compete for the best lies. Since such frames are not decidable only internally coherent (not even consistent), and not correspondent, there is no method of defeating them except by either superior lies (better market service of fantasy), or truth and law. Since truth is decidable and law is decidable it is possible to prosecute all frames other than truth, through coherence, consistency, correspondence, rationality, reciprocity and completeness, and it’s good. Nothing that can be produced by fraud cannot be produced by truthful contract. SO the only reason to lie is to avoid reciprocity and contract. Feminine justificationism of anything. Male adjudication of anything. conformity and comfort, truth and discomfort. -Curt