Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • The term ‘exists’ is a precise word that can be misused for many purposes of dec

    The term ‘exists’ is a precise word that can be misused for many purposes of deception. It is better to say ‘demonstrated’, ‘used’ or ‘known’ when referring to categories in memory, and to reserve existence for the physical. ie: perceived > experienced > known > demonstrated > existential. So, for example, we use the name hyperbole to refer to our oft demonstrated use of exaggeration for the purposes of illustration of some properties we wish to draw attention to. Does hyperbole exist, or is the term hyperbole known, and do people demonstrate that they use the term to refer to exaggeration? For hyperbole exist we require the ideal exist. For the term to be known, for people to act, and for things to exist. The ideal like the supernatural is a term that refers to something magical. knowing (remembering), acting, and existing are not supernatural.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-07 21:17:00 UTC

  • Domagoj Vaci: pronunciation help pls: Is the j =zh and c=ch, or or the soft y an

    Domagoj Vaci: pronunciation help pls: Is the j =zh and c=ch, or or the soft y and s, or the hard consonants of j and k? (thanks)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 14:14:00 UTC

  • ON RUSSIAN CURSES The word “Dolboeb” Russian(“долбаеб”) is a (very) rude curse w

    ON RUSSIAN CURSES

    The word “Dolboeb” Russian(“долбаеб”) is a (very) rude curse word for reckless “idiot” or “crazy idiot”. Russian curses are hard to translate because they are more poetic. But the closest is possibly ‘f-ckhead’ and ‘f-ckwit’.

    But, just as English curses include the intimation of irony, stupidity, incompetence, foolishness, and folly-pride, to understand the Russian versions, you have to add the sense of ‘drunkenness’ to the anglo conception of any insult: a sort of overconfidence, or certainty in your stupidity – plus something else… it’s … that Russians are strong people and curses very often imply someone is strong but stupid – so they don’t have the connotation many of our english words do of feebleness of one kind or another. They don’t think farce or folly, or childishness is funny – just stupid. Humor has to include this overconfidence and pride attribution in order for something to be funny.

    I mean, I remember an early morning, watching a drunk moron try to steal a piece of fruit from the back of a delivery truck, while they men working in the market and the various trucks just laughed and teased him, let him get away with it, then take it from him, and repeat this process for a good half an hour. I mean, there must have been thirty people watching this comedy and everyone was rolling with it. And all with an undercurrent of sympathy. We don’t do that kind of thing in protestant christianity. Which is unfortunate. It’s more civil.

    Russian culture isn’t so much legal as *reasonable*. There is more of the latin ‘reasonableness’, than the absolutism of protestant law. And I prefer our government but their civility.

    It’s why I love them so much.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 10:42:00 UTC

  • ON WORDINESS – Analytic Philosophy is WORDY. – Operational Language is WORDY. –

    ON WORDINESS

    – Analytic Philosophy is WORDY.

    – Operational Language is WORDY.

    – Programming Algorithms is WORDY.

    – Algorithmic Natural Law is gonna be WORDY.

    Technical Languages evolve to speak precisely.

    Precise language containing technical terms is wordy.

    Why if all the other sciences require technical language, to you think that speaking scientifically – meaning TRUTHFULLY – about the the science of cooperation is not going to be wordy?

    Grow the f–k up. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 10:55:00 UTC

  • WHY? : OUR AUTISTIC USE OF TERMS AND “-ISMS” 1) Every philosopher does and must

    WHY? : OUR AUTISTIC USE OF TERMS AND “-ISMS”

    1) Every philosopher does and must add or alter the properties of terms. Otherwise reorganization of categories, relations and values is impossible. The question is only whether we are increasing precision or decreasing precision. In our case we are increasing precision in order to prevent deception by ‘loose language’.

    2) We are removing misrepresentation from terminology by the use of deflation, series, and operational definitions. This means that many terms, when placed in series with related terms, can only ‘fit’ (avoid conflation and misrepresentation) if properties that cause conflation are attributed to one term and not another. By the combination of deflation, isolation of properties, and operational language we all but remove fungibility (use in deception) from terms. Moreover, we eliminate the ability to use deception in the most common manner it is used: the pretense of knowledge where the speaker lacks the knowledge to make the claims he does. Or where he has identified and is making use of a loose relation for the purpose of argument or deduction that does not hold under scrutiny.

    3) All pretense of knowledge and deception is caused by partial or incorrect information causing demand for substitution on the part of the audience, and thereby causing suggestion in the audience.

    4) Suggestion can be used to transfer meaning, which we can then deflate (limit) to truthful propositions. Or suggestion can be used to transfer partial meaning, which we let perform suggestion, or which we expand into falsehood. In other words, we can communicate then limit or we can communication and let the audience expand an idea to unlimited form. Or we can communicate and suggest other limits. And various permutations thereof. So we cannot communicate truthfully without supplying both via positiva (meaning) and via-negativa (limits) so that the competition between meaning and limits allows only potentially true information to survive.

    5) The most successful methods of deception are caused by increasingly *indirect* means of suggestion that cause the audience to perform substitution (fill in the blanks). Advertising (commercial), propaganda(political), and theology(religious) saturation of the environment produces suggestion by deception by the use of overloading the environment. And humans are not able even intentionally to insulate themselves from the free association caused by experiential phenomenon (information). So Advertising, Propaganda, and Theology are methods of deception through deception and overloading.

    6) The use of “-isms”. An “-ism” refers to a portfolio of categories, values, relations that provide decidability within a domain. So an ism is a ‘name’ for an algorithm providing some form of decidability. This ism can be very narrow (platonism) or very broad (marxism). The decidability offered can be true, undecidable, or false, or moral, amoral or immoral. But without referring to ‘-ism’s’ one must list the sometimes long sets of arguments (categories, values, and relations) within them. So it is ‘shorthand’ to use those terms, just like it is shorthand to use math, logic, geometry, calculus, or family, genus, species, race. And yes, it is burdensome on the reader who is ignorant of the subject but comfortable for both the author and the reader who are knowledgeable. The strange question is, why do people read other technical literature, which they must look up and understand terms, yet people who will read technical literature – analytic philosophy, making use of law, economics, science, and mathematics – and expect NOT to look up a lot of terms.

    I find most people rather stupid really. And the world has many more stupid people in it than smart people. But I still love stupid people as long as they desire to be moral. I just get frustrated when stupid but moral people think that the world of information should be built for their consumption like children’s cartoons. That’s not my job. My job is to be right. Not easy.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 09:34:00 UTC

  • REFORM LIBERTARIANISM ONE BRICK AT A TIME: FROM FEBRUARY 2012 – BY IMITATING LEW

    REFORM LIBERTARIANISM ONE BRICK AT A TIME: FROM FEBRUARY 2012 – BY IMITATING LEW ROCKWELL: VOLUMINOUS CRITICISM

    (snip)

    Languages are necessary in order to articulate political preferences. Political preferences are the result of metaphysical value judgements. Value judgements are social strategies.

    The Libertarians have developed a language for universal political speech. Unfortunately, that language is grounded in a moralistic assumption about the very nature, cause and necessity of ethics.

    One brick at a time, one day at a time, I’m trying to reform the libertarian language into aristocratic language, so that conservative sentiments, values, and social strategy can be articulated in the public debate — so that we may conduct a battle of social models against encroaching totalitarianism brought about by Shumpeterian intellectuals.

    (snip)

    https://propertarianism.com/2012/02/21/what-i-learned-from-lew-rockwell/

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-02 13:26:00 UTC

  • GOAL: EMPOWERING YOU Just to hammer home the point, my original intention was to

    GOAL: EMPOWERING YOU

    Just to hammer home the point, my original intention was to create a value neutral language for the articulation and comparison of group, political, moral and ethical differences.

    So that I try to do by *defining series* – to articulate causal relations that are not possible with using terminological *ideal types*.

    So I hope to be able to arm you and the many like you with terms, series, and their relations (concepts), so that those ideas you ‘intuit but have difficulty expressing’ can be expressed with greater ease.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 19:07:00 UTC

  • When you use the word “Logical”, do you mean: – Membership(properties/facts)? –

    When you use the word “Logical”, do you mean:

    – Membership(properties/facts)?

    – Syllogisms(similarities)?

    – Algorithms(sequences)?

    Did ya’ see what I did there?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 07:23:00 UTC

  • NITS ON CHOMSKY He uses ‘psychic continuity’ instead of ‘predictive model’. And

    NITS ON CHOMSKY

    He uses ‘psychic continuity’ instead of ‘predictive model’. And I feel he is using nonsense language. We create predictive models and are anchored by them, because it is ‘cheap’. Just like when you stream video only the changed pixels are transmitted.

    (answering a pm)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-23 13:28:00 UTC

  • OK ‘means’ adequate, sufficient, good enough, good, that will work, done, stop,

    OK ‘means’ adequate, sufficient, good enough, good, that will work, done, stop, next, I am ready, I am fine, I agree. or more directly ‘current context or task is complete, move on to the next’

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 18:54:00 UTC