Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • THE SEMANTICS OF AGENCY (a) when I define a thing, in my arguments, a thing mean

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 16:46:00 UTC

  • GRAMMARS —“How can grammar be Fictional?”— FIrst, see: Fictionalism (Stanfor

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism/THE GRAMMARS

    —“How can grammar be Fictional?”—

    FIrst, see: Fictionalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism/

    Next, technically speaking Grammar consists of rules of continuous disambiguation.

    You can follow me when I have the class on it becuase it’s some of the most interesting parts of my work

    For example, in temporal logic only so many words make sense.

    So, the grammar of temporal logic includes constraints on vocabulary.

    So when I talk about GRAMMARS I show how each grammatical structure (logic) does in fact limit vocabulary.

    As such if you stack the grammars from most simple to most complex, then vocabulary is a subset of grammar.

    So

    Cognitive ability of the mind

    >>> Grammars

    >>>>> Phonemes

    >>>>>> Vocabularies

    This is what I discovered while working with ‘the grammars’ and it’s one of the reasons I had to do so much work.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-28 14:59:00 UTC

  • WHAT YOU WILL LEARN Once I’m done teaching you, you’ll understand that aryan rea

    WHAT YOU WILL LEARN

    Once I’m done teaching you, you’ll understand that aryan reason and science produced a series of deflationary grammars by which we iteratively increase our truth tests, while semitic pilpul took that invention and inverted it creating a series of conflationary and inflationary grammars of fictionalism, by which to produce deceptions.

    Armed with this understanding you will have the basis of white sharia: natural law.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-28 13:09:00 UTC

  • THEY INVENTED PILPUL BY WHICH TO INVERT THE INNOVATION OF GREEK REASON (TRUTH) I

    THEY INVENTED PILPUL BY WHICH TO INVERT THE INNOVATION OF GREEK REASON (TRUTH) INTO ANTI-REASON (LYING)

    (very important concept)

    You mean the people who gave us the undermining of the empire, and constant intentional insurrection, judaism, christianity, and islam and the resulting Abrahamic dark age and 750M dead, and who specialized in slaving, tax predation, and usury, did nothing at all for humanity despite being the most literate group in europe, when freed from ostracization gave us communism, the soviet secret police, the gulag, and 100M dead, the pseudosciences of marx, boas, freud, cantor, mises; gave us the distraction of rothbardian libertarianism, and the tragedy of trotsky-neoconservatism in america; and who invaded american academic institutions using the Frankfurt School out of Columbia; and who were instrumental in systematically undermining the constitution by financing specific cases that would force judicial activism, and who were the advocates and sponsors of the immigration act that accomplished through third world migration what their ideas could not: the second conquest of european civilization – this time through pseudoscientific propaganda, instead of supernatural propaganda; and today are the vastly disproportionate propagandists in globalism by which the multicultural low trust tribalism of the levant is spread to the homogenous high trust peoples of the west? Make no mistake about it. We are all responsible for bad things, but they are responsible for more deaths, dark ages, and destruction than all peoples and all natural events except for the great plagues and diseases. And the reason is simple: they invented Pilpul (abrahamism): the counter-to reason. In other words, they took the innovation of the greeks (idealism) and created it’s opposite (pilpul) by which to overload, load, frame, suggest, and obscure human reason.

    So no. No people has done more harm to humanity in all of human history.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-28 08:29:00 UTC

  • —“You’re Misguided”—

    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. I track economics not literature. I understand that man seizes opportunities then justifies them. 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. Cheers

  • —“You’re Misguided”—

    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. I track economics not literature. I understand that man seizes opportunities then justifies them. 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. Cheers

  • PROPERTARIANISM IN ANGLISH (brilliant!) by Ely Harman Ownerken: the thoughtlore

    PROPERTARIANISM IN ANGLISH (brilliant!)

    by Ely Harman

    Ownerken: the thoughtlore of western Lordcraft.

    A quick guide in Anglish (English with no outlandish words, but only theedish words.)

    Ownerken is a branch of worldken that has to do with the beholding and understanding of fellowship, trust, law, and all the dealings of lords, free men, thralls, and even women.

    Ownerken is not only thoughtlore, but worldken, because like all worldken it begins by guessing at beholdings and then working through them to see if they are untrue. You cannot show a beholding true with a workthrough because some other workthrough (yet undone) may show it untrue. But if a workthrough shows it untrue then that is settled and the beholding must be thrown out. In this way, our beholdings get better with time and become knowledge (true belief) and understanding even though we can never be sure that our beholdings are best or that our knowledge or understanding are flawless.

    Some basic workthroughs from ownerken are:

    Oneness: is each thing one thing, or many? If many, then someone means to fool you and you may kill them.

    Likelihood: will it work? If not, someone means to fool you and you may kill them.

    Reckoning: are all the gains being reckoned, as well as the losses? If not, someone means to fool you, and you may kill them.

    Give and take: Is someone seeking to take without giving? If so, that’s why they mean to fool you, and you may kill them.

    And others…

    The ownerkenish beholding of ownership is that “what you own” is what you are willing and able to keep, hold and guard. Some freeloaders think ownership is made by doing work and so workers own everything. Other freeriders think ownership is made by blending work with land and then traded, meaning workers do not own most things but a few of the best traders do. But all these foolish knaves are wrong because warriors can take their stuff and all they can do about it is whine, which they do, a lot.

    The first thing to ask is why not just kill you and take your stuff? Well. I might lose something by doing that. There will be struggle and threat. But also, we would not be dealing. And so the boons of dealing would be lost. It may be better to deal than to fight, but only if you will deal fair, only if you can fight well, and only if you have something worth dealing for.

    Men can deal, not deal, or fight. So if you want to deal, you must have something worth dealing for, or else we will not deal. And you must have something to threaten in a fight, or else it may be better for many to just fight you and take your stuff for their own.

    To win fights with other men, men must fight together, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield. That means men must trade trust and fellowship because the only thing worth giving trust for is getting it back, the only thing worth giving fellowship for is getting it back.

    To be true fellows, men must have one mind, not on all things, but at least on the weighty ones. Where men are not of one mind they must have a leader to choose for them. Even free men, even lords, will follow a leader if he chooses no less well than them, and/or if the gains from onemindedness outwiegh the losses. And that is why even leaders choose leaders until there is only one high leader between them.

    There is much more to say about ownerken and Lordcraft. But this is the beginning of it…

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-22 18:17:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism in Anglish (Germanic)

    (It’s so obvious how much better english would be in Anglish, and moreover how Anglish and German would be as mutually intelligible as the other germanic languages. I wish I had the balls to write propertarianism in anglish. lol)–CD PROPERTARIANISM IN ANGLISH (brilliant!) by Ely Harman Ownerken: the thoughtlore of western Lordcraft. A quick guide in Anglish (English with no outlandish words, but only theedish words.) Ownerken is a branch of worldken that has to do with the beholding and understanding of fellowship, trust, law, and all the dealings of lords, free men, thralls, and even women. Ownerken is not only thoughtlore, but worldken, because like all worldken it begins by guessing at beholdings and then working through them to see if they are untrue. You cannot show a beholding true with a workthrough because some other workthrough (yet undone) may show it untrue. But if a workthrough shows it untrue then that is settled and the beholding must be thrown out. In this way, our beholdings get better with time and become knowledge (true belief) and understanding even though we can never be sure that our beholdings are best or that our knowledge or understanding are flawless. Some basic workthroughs from ownerken are: Oneness: is each thing one thing, or many? If many, then someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Likelihood: will it work? If not, someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Reckoning: are all the gains being reckoned, as well as the losses? If not, someone means to fool you, and you may kill them. Give and take: Is someone seeking to take without giving? If so, that’s why they mean to fool you, and you may kill them. And others… The ownerkenish beholding of ownership is that “what you own” is what you are willing and able to keep, hold and guard. Some freeloaders think ownership is made by doing work and so workers own everything. Other freeriders think ownership is made by blending work with land and then traded, meaning workers do not own most things but a few of the best traders do. But all these foolish knaves are wrong because warriors can take their stuff and all they can do about it is whine, which they do, a lot. The first thing to ask is why not just kill you and take your stuff? Well. I might lose something by doing that. There will be struggle and threat. But also, we would not be dealing. And so the boons of dealing would be lost. It may be better to deal than to fight, but only if you will deal fair, only if you can fight well, and only if you have something worth dealing for. Men can deal, not deal, or fight. So if you want to deal, you must have something worth dealing for, or else we will not deal. And you must have something to threaten in a fight, or else it may be better for many to just fight you and take your stuff for their own. To win fights with other men, men must fight together, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield. That means men must trade trust and fellowship because the only thing worth giving trust for is getting it back, the only thing worth giving fellowship for is getting it back. To be true fellows, men must have one mind, not on all things, but at least on the weighty ones. Where men are not of one mind they must have a leader to choose for them. Even free men, even lords, will follow a leader if he chooses no less well than them, and/or if the gains from onemindedness outwiegh the losses. And that is why even leaders choose leaders until there is only one high leader between them. There is much more to say about ownerken and Lordcraft. But this is the beginning of it… Apr 22, 2018 6:17pm

  • Propertarianism in Anglish (Germanic)

    (It’s so obvious how much better english would be in Anglish, and moreover how Anglish and German would be as mutually intelligible as the other germanic languages. I wish I had the balls to write propertarianism in anglish. lol)–CD PROPERTARIANISM IN ANGLISH (brilliant!) by Ely Harman Ownerken: the thoughtlore of western Lordcraft. A quick guide in Anglish (English with no outlandish words, but only theedish words.) Ownerken is a branch of worldken that has to do with the beholding and understanding of fellowship, trust, law, and all the dealings of lords, free men, thralls, and even women. Ownerken is not only thoughtlore, but worldken, because like all worldken it begins by guessing at beholdings and then working through them to see if they are untrue. You cannot show a beholding true with a workthrough because some other workthrough (yet undone) may show it untrue. But if a workthrough shows it untrue then that is settled and the beholding must be thrown out. In this way, our beholdings get better with time and become knowledge (true belief) and understanding even though we can never be sure that our beholdings are best or that our knowledge or understanding are flawless. Some basic workthroughs from ownerken are: Oneness: is each thing one thing, or many? If many, then someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Likelihood: will it work? If not, someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Reckoning: are all the gains being reckoned, as well as the losses? If not, someone means to fool you, and you may kill them. Give and take: Is someone seeking to take without giving? If so, that’s why they mean to fool you, and you may kill them. And others… The ownerkenish beholding of ownership is that “what you own” is what you are willing and able to keep, hold and guard. Some freeloaders think ownership is made by doing work and so workers own everything. Other freeriders think ownership is made by blending work with land and then traded, meaning workers do not own most things but a few of the best traders do. But all these foolish knaves are wrong because warriors can take their stuff and all they can do about it is whine, which they do, a lot. The first thing to ask is why not just kill you and take your stuff? Well. I might lose something by doing that. There will be struggle and threat. But also, we would not be dealing. And so the boons of dealing would be lost. It may be better to deal than to fight, but only if you will deal fair, only if you can fight well, and only if you have something worth dealing for. Men can deal, not deal, or fight. So if you want to deal, you must have something worth dealing for, or else we will not deal. And you must have something to threaten in a fight, or else it may be better for many to just fight you and take your stuff for their own. To win fights with other men, men must fight together, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield. That means men must trade trust and fellowship because the only thing worth giving trust for is getting it back, the only thing worth giving fellowship for is getting it back. To be true fellows, men must have one mind, not on all things, but at least on the weighty ones. Where men are not of one mind they must have a leader to choose for them. Even free men, even lords, will follow a leader if he chooses no less well than them, and/or if the gains from onemindedness outwiegh the losses. And that is why even leaders choose leaders until there is only one high leader between them. There is much more to say about ownerken and Lordcraft. But this is the beginning of it… Apr 22, 2018 6:17pm

  • It’s so obvious how much better english would be in Anglish, and moreover how An

    It’s so obvious how much better english would be in Anglish, and moreover how Anglish and German would be as mutually intelligible as the other germanic languages. I wish I had the balls to write propertarianism in anglish. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-22 09:37:00 UTC