Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • Um. I think you’ll at least understand my restatement of history, once you under

    Um. I think you’ll at least understand my restatement of history, once you understand deflationary and critical vs inflationary, conflationary, and fictional grammars.

    I am tracking the technologies of truth and deception, and group evolutionary strategy using those grammars, just as you would track the history of linguistics, genes, pottery, or metallurgy.

    And I track economics not literature.

    And I understand that man seizes opportunities then justifies them.

    And I understand the desire for literature in some classes and results in other classes throughout history.

    And once you have these understandings, you also attribute very different values and incentives to historical events, just as knowledge of science forced us to rewrite our understanding and history.

    Now, you might say I err, but do I err, but it’s extremely unlikely that I err. Because we need do nothing more than study the economics (incentives), and grammars (excuses) to determine whether people acted morally in fact, or immorally, casting themselves as moral.

    I am not misguided. My understanding of history is very clearly, the initiation of indo europeans, and the socially destabilizing counter-revolutions against their innovations, because meritocracy, reciprocity, sovereignty, and markets are a threat to every single old order.

    The problem that you’ll face is providing superior explanatory power with greater parsimony, without appealing to knowledge that can’t exist in time and space.

    You don’t know that (yet).

    but that’s what you’re dealing with.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-03 12:21:00 UTC

  • Deception by Conflation: Inflating Authority

    There is no such thing as legitimacy other than the legitimacy of a child. There is no such thing as validity other than a stamp of certification. In argument there is only soundness, and soundness is not a proxy for true, simply for reasonableness – meaning it’s understandable and so far not false.

  • Deception by Conflation: Inflating Authority

    There is no such thing as legitimacy other than the legitimacy of a child. There is no such thing as validity other than a stamp of certification. In argument there is only soundness, and soundness is not a proxy for true, simply for reasonableness – meaning it’s understandable and so far not false.

  • It takes a great deal of Agency to speak truthfully; and learning to speak truth

    It takes a great deal of Agency to speak truthfully; and learning to speak truthfully provides you with Agency. Operational grammar of testimonial speech is as important as reading, mathematics, and logic.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-02 16:41:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991719291396460544

  • EXISTENCE —“It’s worth distinguishing between the knowledge of a referrer and

    EXISTENCE

    —“It’s worth distinguishing between the knowledge of a referrer and the existence of its referent. We clearly know of the referrer (concept) we call ‘unicorn’, and might someday be able to bring some approximation of a unicorn into existence as a referent. The referent of the referrer ‘unicorn’ is not real, meaning it does not exist insofar as there isn’t a thing you can point to in the world and say ‘this is what I mean’.”–Trent Fowler

    Knowledge(know,knowing) is a verb – an action – not a noun (thing). Knowledge exists as long as a living mind exists to hold it, or a record of knowledge exists that is reconstructable into knowledge (experience), just as running exists only while a person runs.

    Knowledge of a unicorn exists, and we label such knowledge a ‘concept’ which means some category or other of referrer. Knowledge of concepts exists, but concepts do not. Knowledge of unicorns exists, but unicorns do not.

    Horses exist.

    Dinosaurs did exist, but other than their descendants: reptiles and birds do not.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-02 12:54:00 UTC

  • It takes a great deal of Agency to speak truthfully; and learning to speak truth

    It takes a great deal of Agency to speak truthfully; and learning to speak truthfully provides you with Agency. Operational grammar of testimonial speech is as important as reading, mathematics, and logic.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-02 12:41:00 UTC

  • It’s justificationary pseudoscience – an interaction on Pilpul. The fact that we

    It’s justificationary pseudoscience – an interaction on Pilpul. The fact that we can create grammars (general rules) and Logics (constant relations) does nothing without operational (commensurable) language – and with it the other two are trivial.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-02 11:31:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991641410569981952

    Reply addressees: @smalwigwamlight @FriedrichHayek

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991317082636611585

    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/991317082636611585

  • SERIES: Imaginable > possible > reasonable > rational(ism), logical > tautologic

    SERIES: Imaginable > possible > reasonable > rational(ism), logical > tautological.

    Very common in english, which is a very technical language (analytic), we tend to pick terms that convey higher authority (persuasive ability) than our arguments support.

    So technically speaking most of the time we use ‘rational’ we mean reasonable, and when we use the term rational we mean argumentatively sound, and when we mean logical, we mean (very) internally consistent.

    So technically speaking when we use ‘rational choice’ we mean ‘reasonable choice’. The problem is ‘rational choice’ is embedded in the literature. We really don’t have a term for between reasonable (we can understand it), reasonable given the actor’s unseen incentives and values, and rational meaning argumentatively sound.

    Sometimes for clarity I’ll use reasonable vs rational choice, vs rational.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 20:19:00 UTC

  • The Semantics of Agency

    (a) when I define a thing, in my arguments, a thing means what I define it to mean, and nothing else. In this case the limit of my definition of agency is omniscience, “omniexperience”, “omnigrammar”, and omnipotence, in thought, emotion, word, and deed. (b) I chose the term agency as I generally do, to extend an existing term that was partly false to one that is not false. (c) I developed ‘Agency’ to provide commensurability with ‘Truth’, ‘Sovereignty’, as approaching but never reaching Completion. (e) and the reason is, that in agency, like truth and sovereignty I cannot know the future structures of all kinds that make those conditions possible, and as such defined it for likewise infinite decidability. (d) The fact that we can organize to produce agency is handled elsewhere, and a given.

  • The Semantics of Agency

    (a) when I define a thing, in my arguments, a thing means what I define it to mean, and nothing else. In this case the limit of my definition of agency is omniscience, “omniexperience”, “omnigrammar”, and omnipotence, in thought, emotion, word, and deed. (b) I chose the term agency as I generally do, to extend an existing term that was partly false to one that is not false. (c) I developed ‘Agency’ to provide commensurability with ‘Truth’, ‘Sovereignty’, as approaching but never reaching Completion. (e) and the reason is, that in agency, like truth and sovereignty I cannot know the future structures of all kinds that make those conditions possible, and as such defined it for likewise infinite decidability. (d) The fact that we can organize to produce agency is handled elsewhere, and a given.