re: commensurability
—“Time horizons and acquisition strategies couple to which grammar one uses (low investment, short time horizon etc etc)”— Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 18:28:00 UTC
re: commensurability
—“Time horizons and acquisition strategies couple to which grammar one uses (low investment, short time horizon etc etc)”— Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 18:28:00 UTC
COMMENSURABILITY EVOLVES GRAMMATICAL SPECIALIZATION
Now, in order for each of us to create commensurability between ideas we tend to specialize in one of the grammars, and pull from other grammars as necessary.
Myself I learned history first, physics and math second, algorithms third, and economics fourth. My understanding of psychology was produced by indoctrination into the “Predictive Index” which is somewhere above MBTI and below Big Five and the Minnesota Multiphasic (MMPI). So I have been thinking in ‘incentives’ (not types) for the entirety of my adult life. Economics is just an extension of thinking in incentives. Praxeological thinking an operationalization of incentives. And operationalism the use of human scale commensurability. And when combined with algorithms and the study of artificial intelligence – not neural networks, but probabilistic decision trees (similar to Taleb’s work in finance), this continued the process by which I was able to insulate my thought (deflate) emotions and incentives.
Most people fall into one of the grammars and we think of this as a ‘way of thinking’. So you find people that choose frameworks from the occult, to the supernatural (theological), literary-rational (think continental philosophy), to the literary, to the moral, to the historical, to the empirical (think skeptical), to the legal to the scientific. And to different pionts in between. Some people have less organized minds and pick and choose from each as alnalogies or facts, but cannot make arguments except by contrasting such randome picks. These people rely upon “ordinary language grammar”
Other people develop frameworks of argument and understanding and at this point they then do specilize in one of the grammars because otherwise they cannot find commensurability.
Others hyper-specialize and reframe everything into one of the grammars. So you find scientists(aristotelians), rationalists(socratics), literary-ists(Platonists), and theologians (Saulists and Augustinians and muslims), and every variation thereof.
What I have done is hyperspecialize operational grammar, because it produces commensurability across ALL THE GRAMMARS.
And this is the whole point: commensurability.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 11:43:00 UTC
—“Curt, Is Peterson still….”— In the choice of grammars between: Aristotelian Scientist (description), Stoic Self Authoring (education and training), Platonist Philosopher (literature), and Abrahamic Theologian (Religion), Peterson cherry picks from each for support, but is narrative (what he argues with) is pure platonism (literature). My hope was that he would favor the scientific and stoic, but he pulls from each discipline as needed. My understanding of him (as well as most others) is that they lack the method of description obtained from (micro) economics (incentives). So they do their best. We should not expect perfection of an individual, but that he advances the cause. And instead we should expect that a field of individuals supply a range of arguments
—“Curt, Is Peterson still….”— In the choice of grammars between: Aristotelian Scientist (description), Stoic Self Authoring (education and training), Platonist Philosopher (literature), and Abrahamic Theologian (Religion), Peterson cherry picks from each for support, but is narrative (what he argues with) is pure platonism (literature). My hope was that he would favor the scientific and stoic, but he pulls from each discipline as needed. My understanding of him (as well as most others) is that they lack the method of description obtained from (micro) economics (incentives). So they do their best. We should not expect perfection of an individual, but that he advances the cause. And instead we should expect that a field of individuals supply a range of arguments
—“Hey Curt ! I have been following you for some times. I just saw your youtube intro to propertarianism. When you talk about operational grammars, are you talking about isolating the rules of each domain of human knowledge and find a common ground between them ?”— A Friend Wow, that is one of the smartest first-questions anyone has ever asked me. Yes. “universal commensurability” or “universal language”. This allows us to criticize (judge) across all disciplines.
—“Hey Curt ! I have been following you for some times. I just saw your youtube intro to propertarianism. When you talk about operational grammars, are you talking about isolating the rules of each domain of human knowledge and find a common ground between them ?”— A Friend Wow, that is one of the smartest first-questions anyone has ever asked me. Yes. “universal commensurability” or “universal language”. This allows us to criticize (judge) across all disciplines.
—“Hey Curt ! I have been following you for some times. I just saw your youtube intro to propertarianism. When you talk about operational grammars, are you talking about isolating the rules of each domain of human knowledge and find a common ground between them ?”— A Friend
Wow, that is one of the smartest first-questions anyone has ever asked me.
Yes. “universal commensurability” or “universal language”.
This allows us to criticize (judge) across all disciplines.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 10:37:00 UTC
—“Curt, Is Peterson still….”—
In the choice of grammars between: Aristotelian Scientist (description), Stoic Self Authoring (education and training), Platonist Philosopher (literature), and Abrahamic Theologian (Religion), Peterson cherry picks from each for support, but is narrative (what he argues with) is pure platonism (literature).
My hope was that he would favor the scientific and stoic, but he pulls from each discipline as needed.
My understanding of him (as well as most others) is that they lack the method of description obtained from (micro) economics (incentives).
So they do their best.
We should not expect perfection of an individual, but that he advances the cause. And instead we should expect that a field of individuals supply a range of arguments.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 09:20:00 UTC
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GRAMMARS
I’ve been fussing over the grammars for a few weeks, and it’s occurred to me that this idea is as important as testimonialism, because it provides a means of comprehending the very great difference between reasoning and calculating.
So, while I sort of treated it as ‘groundwork’ for testimonialism, I think I’m going to lift it up to it’s own subject under or epistemology.
My intuition was to move it under Vitruvianism in metaphysics because it’s a system of measurement of sorts and the discussion naturally flows from one idea to the next.
We’ll see.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-13 17:51:00 UTC
I’ve been fussing over the grammars for a few weeks, and it’s occurred to me that this idea is as important as testimonialism, because it provides a means of comprehending the very great difference between reasoning and calculating. So, while I sort of treated it as ‘groundwork’ for testimonialism, I think I’m going to lift it up to it’s own subject under or epistemology. My intuition was to move it under Vitruvianism in metaphysics because it’s a system of measurement of sorts and the discussion naturally flows from one idea to the next. We’ll see.