Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Curt Doolittle have you come across any decent studies of language which accurat

    Curt Doolittle have you come across any decent studies of language which accurately report the early adopters of written language, and actually convey the comprehensive affect on the winners; and rise of subsequent competitors and that impact? What does such a back and forth look like? Winners, losers. All societies logically connected to this story imo, and I suspect there might remain a few untold lessons or affirmations to be gleamed. Vindication for right argumentation could be a benefit, as well. Which would offer even less wiggle room for false arguments. 🙂

  • What Do You Mean By “True”?

    WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “TRUE”? A commensurable common language consists of constant relations. In response to any substantive innovation, we falsify some relations, redefine others, and create others. Which in turn requires falsification of some existing terms, redefinition of others, and the creation of yet still others. Yet, what is the minimum reformation of categories, relations and values, and reformation of accompanying language, and illustrative narratives that demonstrate those relations, before that new organization of categories, relations and values is shared? It’s non trivial. It’s less work when that reformation is desirable, and it’s more work when it is undesirable. [D]ECIDABLE: In the REVERSE: In logic we state that a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present within the system (ie: is decidable). In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary). Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm). || TAUTOLOGY < ANALYTIC TRUTH < (IDEAL) TRUTH < TRUTHFULNESS < HONESTY < IMPULSE TAUTOLOGY: Marginally indifferent means of expressing constant relations. ANALYTIC TRUTH: Internally consistent, independent of external correspondence. In the construction of proofs, open to substitution and independent of context, we produce tests of internal consistency (generally speaking, the preservation of ratios). Or more simply, the preservation of constant relations. [T]RUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. [T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. [H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. [D]emand for Truth (Decidability): True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship True enough for me to feel good about myself. True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. [D]ue Diligence necessary for Warranty that our Testimony is Truthful. 1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent? 2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency? 3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence. 4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such? 6) Is it a rational choice (praxeological)? 7) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?) 8) Is it limited? Do you know it’s boundaries (falsification) 9) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?) [F]alsehood Techniques. 1) Ignorance 2) Error 3) Bias, and Wishful thinking 4) Loading, Framing, Suggestion Obscurantism, 5) Fiction, Inflation, Conflation 6) Fictionalism (idealism, pseudoscience, supernaturalism, (primary means of overloading) 7) Deceit. (full fiction) 8) (Conspiracy – Scale 2) 9) (Propagandism – Scale 3) 10) (Institutionalization – Scale 4) If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception. EVIL < IMMORAL < UNETHICAL < |AMORAL| > ETHICAL > MORAL > GOOD. MORAL (USAGE) The term “Moral” can be used in a specific sense or a general sense. Either as behavior that imposes costs anonymously and indirectly, or as a general term to refer to all moral, ethical, and criminal behavior. Specific: 0) In the series criminal, ethical, and moral, criminal refers to overt crimes, ethical to crimes of interpersonal informational asymmetry (crimes against a person you deal with), and moral to indirect crimes of informational asymmetry (crimes against the social order). General: 1) Objective (decidable) morality: non imposition / reciprocity (Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against demonstrated investments by externality.) 2) Normative morality: that portfolio of norms that in the aggregate produce a group evolutionary strategy, and therefore immoral and moral actions may be judged objectively or normatively. 3) Subjective moral intuitions: that moral intuition we possess because of the combination of genetics, environment and training, and our attempt to survive genetic , social, and economic competition. These may be judged normatively and objectively. 4) Fictional Morality: those wishful arguments we make.. etc. These may be judged subjectively, normatively, and objectively. CLOSING The question is, how can we speak in a manner that limits the semantics, grammar, and syntax to constant relations that are invulnerable to, resistant to, or which expose, the various falsehoods that skew, eliminate, or replace, existing constant relations?

  • What Do You Mean By “True”?

    WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “TRUE”? A commensurable common language consists of constant relations. In response to any substantive innovation, we falsify some relations, redefine others, and create others. Which in turn requires falsification of some existing terms, redefinition of others, and the creation of yet still others. Yet, what is the minimum reformation of categories, relations and values, and reformation of accompanying language, and illustrative narratives that demonstrate those relations, before that new organization of categories, relations and values is shared? It’s non trivial. It’s less work when that reformation is desirable, and it’s more work when it is undesirable. [D]ECIDABLE: In the REVERSE: In logic we state that a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present within the system (ie: is decidable). In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary). Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm). || TAUTOLOGY < ANALYTIC TRUTH < (IDEAL) TRUTH < TRUTHFULNESS < HONESTY < IMPULSE TAUTOLOGY: Marginally indifferent means of expressing constant relations. ANALYTIC TRUTH: Internally consistent, independent of external correspondence. In the construction of proofs, open to substitution and independent of context, we produce tests of internal consistency (generally speaking, the preservation of ratios). Or more simply, the preservation of constant relations. [T]RUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. [T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. [H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. [D]emand for Truth (Decidability): True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship True enough for me to feel good about myself. True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. [D]ue Diligence necessary for Warranty that our Testimony is Truthful. 1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent? 2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency? 3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence. 4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such? 6) Is it a rational choice (praxeological)? 7) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?) 8) Is it limited? Do you know it’s boundaries (falsification) 9) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?) [F]alsehood Techniques. 1) Ignorance 2) Error 3) Bias, and Wishful thinking 4) Loading, Framing, Suggestion Obscurantism, 5) Fiction, Inflation, Conflation 6) Fictionalism (idealism, pseudoscience, supernaturalism, (primary means of overloading) 7) Deceit. (full fiction) 8) (Conspiracy – Scale 2) 9) (Propagandism – Scale 3) 10) (Institutionalization – Scale 4) If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception. EVIL < IMMORAL < UNETHICAL < |AMORAL| > ETHICAL > MORAL > GOOD. MORAL (USAGE) The term “Moral” can be used in a specific sense or a general sense. Either as behavior that imposes costs anonymously and indirectly, or as a general term to refer to all moral, ethical, and criminal behavior. Specific: 0) In the series criminal, ethical, and moral, criminal refers to overt crimes, ethical to crimes of interpersonal informational asymmetry (crimes against a person you deal with), and moral to indirect crimes of informational asymmetry (crimes against the social order). General: 1) Objective (decidable) morality: non imposition / reciprocity (Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against demonstrated investments by externality.) 2) Normative morality: that portfolio of norms that in the aggregate produce a group evolutionary strategy, and therefore immoral and moral actions may be judged objectively or normatively. 3) Subjective moral intuitions: that moral intuition we possess because of the combination of genetics, environment and training, and our attempt to survive genetic , social, and economic competition. These may be judged normatively and objectively. 4) Fictional Morality: those wishful arguments we make.. etc. These may be judged subjectively, normatively, and objectively. CLOSING The question is, how can we speak in a manner that limits the semantics, grammar, and syntax to constant relations that are invulnerable to, resistant to, or which expose, the various falsehoods that skew, eliminate, or replace, existing constant relations?

  • WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “TRUE”? A commensurable common language consists of constant

    WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “TRUE”?

    A commensurable common language consists of constant relations. In response to any substantive innovation, we falsify some relations, redefine others, and create others. Which in turn requires falsification of some existing terms, redefinition of others, and the creation of yet still others.

    Yet, what is the minimum reformation of categories, relations and values, and reformation of accompanying language, and illustrative narratives that demonstrate those relations, before that new organization of categories, relations and values is shared?

    It’s non trivial. It’s less work when that reformation is desirable, and it’s more work when it is undesirable.

    [D]ECIDABLE: In the REVERSE: In logic we state that a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present within the system (ie: is decidable). In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary). Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm).

    || TAUTOLOGY < ANALYTIC TRUTH < (IDEAL) TRUTH < TRUTHFULNESS < HONESTY < IMPULSE

    TAUTOLOGY: Marginally indifferent means of expressing constant relations.

    ANALYTIC TRUTH: Internally consistent, independent of external correspondence. In the construction of proofs, open to substitution and independent of context, we produce tests of internal consistency (generally speaking, the preservation of ratios). Or more simply, the preservation of constant relations.

    [T]RUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    [T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    [H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    [D]emand for Truth (Decidability):

    True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    [D]ue Diligence necessary for Warranty that our Testimony is Truthful.

    1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent?

    2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency?

    3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence.

    4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such?

    6) Is it a rational choice (praxeological)?

    7) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?)

    8) Is it limited? Do you know it’s boundaries (falsification)

    9) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?)

    [F]alsehood Techniques.

    1) Ignorance

    2) Error

    3) Bias, and Wishful thinking

    4) Loading, Framing, Suggestion Obscurantism,

    5) Fiction, Inflation, Conflation

    6) Fictionalism (idealism, pseudoscience, supernaturalism, (primary means of overloading)

    7) Deceit. (full fiction)

    8) (Conspiracy – Scale 2)

    9) (Propagandism – Scale 3)

    10) (Institutionalization – Scale 4)

    If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception.

    EVIL < IMMORAL < UNETHICAL < |AMORAL| > ETHICAL > MORAL > GOOD.

    MORAL (USAGE)

    The term “Moral” can be used in a specific sense or a general sense. Either as behavior that imposes costs anonymously and indirectly, or as a general term to refer to all moral, ethical, and criminal behavior.

    Specific:

    0) In the series criminal, ethical, and moral, criminal refers to overt crimes, ethical to crimes of interpersonal informational asymmetry (crimes against a person you deal with), and moral to indirect crimes of informational asymmetry (crimes against the social order).

    General:

    1) Objective (decidable) morality: non imposition / reciprocity (Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against demonstrated investments by externality.)

    2) Normative morality: that portfolio of norms that in the aggregate produce a group evolutionary strategy, and therefore immoral and moral actions may be judged objectively or normatively.

    3) Subjective moral intuitions: that moral intuition we possess because of the combination of genetics, environment and training, and our attempt to survive genetic , social, and economic competition. These may be judged normatively and objectively.

    4) Fictional Morality: those wishful arguments we make.. etc. These may be judged subjectively, normatively, and objectively.

    CLOSING

    The question is, how can we speak in a manner that limits the semantics, grammar, and syntax to constant relations that are invulnerable to, resistant to, or which expose, the various falsehoods that skew, eliminate, or replace, existing constant relations?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-24 13:40:00 UTC

  • Education’s Original Thesis

    Primary School: Grammar (repetition) Elementary School: Logic (understanding) High School: Rhetoric (persuasion) However. The current strategy is this: infantilization.

  • Education’s Original Thesis

    Primary School: Grammar (repetition) Elementary School: Logic (understanding) High School: Rhetoric (persuasion) However. The current strategy is this: infantilization.

  • EDUCATION’S ORIGINAL THESIS Primary School: Grammar (repetition) Elementary Scho

    EDUCATION’S ORIGINAL THESIS

    Primary School: Grammar (repetition)

    Elementary School: Logic (understanding)

    High School: Rhetoric (persuasion)

    However. The current strategy is this: infantilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-21 17:47:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) Prof Wildberger: I love that you’re trying to de-platonize math

    (from elsewhere) Prof Wildberger: I love that you’re trying to de-platonize mathematics, and return it to the sciences. Mathematical platonism uses a grammar and semantics of fiction (it’s technically a ‘Fictionalism’). And I can understand why some people have a natural tendency, out of historical bias, and out of the influence of hermeneutics (religious and scriptural interpretation) to fictionalize mathematics. In doing so they convert it from a science of measurement of constant relations in increasing dimensions into a linguistic ANALOGY – thereby obscuring (losing) the causal properties of mathematics (measurement of constant relations in increasing dimensions using positional naming). And that is the reason it’s both difficult to teach people (when it should be trivial), and forces us to rely on memorization rather than ‘understanding’. Where “understanding” means ‘in the context of existential reality, and therefore an extension of existential reality.