Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • not in operational language it isnt

    not in operational language it isnt….

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-01 02:49:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936426877065015297

    Reply addressees: @KANTBOT20K

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936419301057351680

    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/936419301057351680

  • Definitions Are Recipes

    by Bill Joslin The only definitions (identity) which rest in the commons are operational descriptions (recipes). Operational descriptions stand on their own as a set of arguments – thus definitions simply assign a name to a set of operational arguments. We then use names, for sake of brevity, to build new, higher order arguments. The relation of lower order and higher order definitions are two-fold – either a lower order argument has a causal relation to a higher order one (a primary or fundamental ) or the higher order argument provides superordinate to the lower order argument. By categorizing according to arguments versus object-properties we may open up new meta-relations which are not available with an object-property mentality.

  • DEFINITIONS ARE RECIPES by Bill Joslin The only definitions (identity) which res

    DEFINITIONS ARE RECIPES

    by Bill Joslin

    The only definitions (identity) which rest in the commons are operational descriptions (recipes).

    Operational descriptions stand on their own as a set of arguments – thus definitions simply assign a name to a set of operational arguments.

    We then use names, for sake of brevity, to build new, higher order arguments.

    The relation of lower order and higher order definitions are two-fold – either a lower order argument has a causal relation to a higher order one (a primary or fundamental ) or the higher order argument provides superordinate to the lower order argument.

    By categorizing according to arguments versus object-properties we may open up new meta-relations which are not available with an object-property mentality.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-29 16:57:00 UTC

  • Only Human Enough To Not Soil One’s Self In Public.

    I just went through the comment and it consists of standard language from law, philosophy, social science, and economics. The fact that I am knowledgeable in many fields is uncommon, but the language is neither opaque, or difficult to research, which is – usually – what people do, rather than ascribe to terms of art common in disciplines the vulgar assumption of ‘private speech’. If you lack knowledge of social science, philosophy, law, economics, and perhaps at least the methodology of the physical sciences, then why is it one would render opinions on such matters? That comment’s bit of text is quite worthy of contemplation. If you are not yet able to contemplate it because you lack the vocabulary and knowledge to do so that’s understandable. If you can’t discern its possible value, then that’s understandable. If you can’t glean enough from the pattern of argument that you might infer there is something to be learned here, then that is Your world is simple with simple problems requiring simple answers. But your post’s question is not one of a simple world with simple answers. It is instead, the accumulated record of 10k years of the resolution of disputes between peoples from the interpersonal to the international scale. International law is constructed by testes of reciprocity. “Authority (coercion) in defense of voluntary reciprocity whether prescriptive, or proscriptive is always just, regardless of the opinion of the person coerced.” And the implication is, that people who don’t grasp that are …. let’s say … Primitive? Adolescent? Only human enough not to soil themselves in public?

  • Only Human Enough To Not Soil One’s Self In Public.

    I just went through the comment and it consists of standard language from law, philosophy, social science, and economics. The fact that I am knowledgeable in many fields is uncommon, but the language is neither opaque, or difficult to research, which is – usually – what people do, rather than ascribe to terms of art common in disciplines the vulgar assumption of ‘private speech’. If you lack knowledge of social science, philosophy, law, economics, and perhaps at least the methodology of the physical sciences, then why is it one would render opinions on such matters? That comment’s bit of text is quite worthy of contemplation. If you are not yet able to contemplate it because you lack the vocabulary and knowledge to do so that’s understandable. If you can’t discern its possible value, then that’s understandable. If you can’t glean enough from the pattern of argument that you might infer there is something to be learned here, then that is Your world is simple with simple problems requiring simple answers. But your post’s question is not one of a simple world with simple answers. It is instead, the accumulated record of 10k years of the resolution of disputes between peoples from the interpersonal to the international scale. International law is constructed by testes of reciprocity. “Authority (coercion) in defense of voluntary reciprocity whether prescriptive, or proscriptive is always just, regardless of the opinion of the person coerced.” And the implication is, that people who don’t grasp that are …. let’s say … Primitive? Adolescent? Only human enough not to soil themselves in public?

  • ONLY HUMAN ENOUGH TO NOT SOIL ONE’S SELF IN PUBLIC. I just went through the comm

    ONLY HUMAN ENOUGH TO NOT SOIL ONE’S SELF IN PUBLIC.

    I just went through the comment and it consists of standard language from law, philosophy, social science, and economics. The fact that I am knowledgeable in many fields is uncommon, but the language is neither opaque, or difficult to research, which is – usually – what people do, rather than ascribe to terms of art common in disciplines the vulgar assumption of ‘private speech’.

    If you lack knowledge of social science, philosophy, law, economics, and perhaps at least the methodology of the physical sciences, then why is it one would render opinions on such matters?

    That comment’s bit of text is quite worthy of contemplation.

    If you are not yet able to contemplate it because you lack the vocabulary and knowledge to do so that’s understandable. If you can’t discern its possible value, then that’s understandable. If you can’t glean enough from the pattern of argument that you might infer there is something to be learned here, then that is

    Your world is simple with simple problems requiring simple answers. But your post’s question is not one of a simple world with simple answers. It is instead, the accumulated record of 10k years of the resolution of disputes between peoples from the interpersonal to the international scale. International law is constructed by testes of reciprocity.

    “Authority (coercion) in defense of voluntary reciprocity whether prescriptive, or proscriptive is always just, regardless of the opinion of the person coerced.”

    And the implication is, that people who don’t grasp that are …. let’s say … Primitive? Adolescent? Only human enough not to soil themselves in public?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 17:39:00 UTC

  • “When I first began reading you Curt, the difficulty was understanding your impl

    —“When I first began reading you Curt, the difficulty was understanding your implied word definitions, many of which conflicted with my own, and therefore made some of your arguments seem nonsensical. Like any new vocabulary, once I learned the language, your arguments seem quite simple. That’s not an insult but a heroic compliment. As an example, I considered myself a libertarian on most topics for years. You dismantled that crap and altered my viewpoint more simply than roasting a chicken.”— Jim Leis (Made. My. Day.)

  • “When I first began reading you Curt, the difficulty was understanding your impl

    —“When I first began reading you Curt, the difficulty was understanding your implied word definitions, many of which conflicted with my own, and therefore made some of your arguments seem nonsensical. Like any new vocabulary, once I learned the language, your arguments seem quite simple. That’s not an insult but a heroic compliment. As an example, I considered myself a libertarian on most topics for years. You dismantled that crap and altered my viewpoint more simply than roasting a chicken.”— Jim Leis (Made. My. Day.)

  • “When I first began reading you Curt, the difficulty was understanding your impl

    —“When I first began reading you Curt, the difficulty was understanding your implied word definitions, many of which conflicted with my own, and therefore made some of your arguments seem nonsensical.

    Like any new vocabulary, once I learned the language, your arguments seem quite simple. That’s not an insult but a heroic compliment.

    As an example, I considered myself a libertarian on most topics for years. You dismantled that crap and altered my viewpoint more simply than roasting a chicken.”— Jim Leis

    (Made. My. Day.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 17:17:00 UTC

  • I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is tha

    I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is that the most monstrous of the arts is writing in the grammar and semantics of fictionalism (pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology), and in particular the conflation of all of the above. The greatest cause of death in history, other than the great plagues and malaria, is the conflationary grammar of fictionalism. The origin of the conflationary grammar of fictionalism is Pilpul – which is argumentatively indifferent when applied to wisdom myth, literature, history, law, astrology, and numerology. So whether men do evil directly, promote evil by intent, or inspire evil indirectly, there is no difference between the evil wrought at interpersonal, social, and civilizational scale – except, that scale. And of those evils, there is none greater than the use of fictionalism. And no good greater than truth that defeats it. All people are capable of free association. Common people lack the agency to separate the great arts of men, from their great crimes. Simple people never grasp the art, only artist – they are incapable otherwise. But the truth is, without exception, men of low character produce low art. Unfortunately, there is a large market demand for low art by people of low character, whether it be decoration, craft, design, art, myth, literature, history, law, science, or … magic, mysticism, astrology, or numerology. Woody Allen is about as bad a person as walks the earth – which was obvious from his works at the time for those of who have an education in the arts. What difference is it if he produces moving pictures from scripts rather than plays, versus the writings of rousseau (far worse than woody allen) or the works of Foucault (a bad person for certain), or the works of Picasso who was terribly ill mannered, and very close if not certainly a pedophile. And I can’t think of a reason not to destroy their works, for in retrospect, they were all results of the sick minds that made them, and perpetuation of that memory is harmful. But if we are to destroy works, how do we select what to destroy? This is the hard question. And this is why we don’t destroy (many) works – we instead create new ones that demonize the producers and their work. The world will not be harmed by the burning of certain films. Although, it is often better to leave the example of their criminality and evil in the historical literature as a warning to those who might venture into similar territories once again, if they had not that reference to draw from.