Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? A thing must be defined by what it is not, just as much as w

    WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?

    A thing must be defined by what it is not, just as much as what it is, or we find people using a vague similarity as a means of either cherry picking from similar things or claiming the persuasive ability of truth content that is not present.

    As far as I know:

    There is a great difference between:

    – the true, the good, the preferable, the useful, the possible, and the not possible.

    1) Science(Truth) = the search for decidability independent of domain, individual, or group.

    2) Philosophy(Goodness) = search for decidability within a domain within a group regardless of whether it is true.

    3) Ideology(Preference) = search for allies in pursuit of a preference within a group, regardless of whether it is good or true.

    4) Technique(Utility) = the search for utility and possibility, regardless of self, or others, and regardless of preference, goodness, or truth.

    And I think it is very hard for other definitions to survive this test.

    In fact, I think it is very hard to claim other definitions are other than something between a deception and a fallacy.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 12:24:00 UTC

  • I am trying to force you to articulate a set of causal relations upon which your

    I am trying to force you to articulate a set of causal relations upon which your definitions rest as premises, and you are simply evading them.

    EXISTENCE: persistent(real and noun), demonstrated(real and verb ) potential(possible knowledge demonstrated by action), ideal(meaningful but not real), supernatural(meaningful, not real, and false.).

    What I have demonstrated is that :

    1) Rights do not exist without others to appeal to in order to enforce them. We may want or need certain rights as potentially existential. But they only exist and you can only ‘have’ them once they are brought to potential through cooperation with others.

    2) That one can physically invest in something (demonstrate an interest). One can possess something. But no concept of ‘property’ can exist without others to exchange recognition of ownership with us. One possesses something by physical control over it. One owns something when others insure it – even if by only one to one reciprocity. One possesses property only when the institution exists. One possesses property rights only when one can exercise them in a court.

    3) The scope of possession is determined by your ability to defend it.

    The scope of property is determined by the market. Whether that be one other or a whole empire. The minimum scope of property necessary for an anarchic polity is determined by the demand for authority (the state), the market for members, the market for polities – including survival against competitors.

    Now you may not realize this is an argument that the half truths of non aggression and private property and argumentation cannot survive, but that does not change the fact that they cannot survive this argument.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 20:58:00 UTC

  • by Jací Eugène Esteban –“Curt Doolittle’s craft of word usage is not something

    by Jací Eugène Esteban

    –“Curt Doolittle’s craft of word usage is not something that should be used to slight him. Curt is aware that his arguments take place on the Internet, and as such, his opponents are granted the liberty to counter his claims with a quick Google search, but his opacity makes this difficult, leaving his opponent to retort only with preexisting knowledge. If he has to use words without synonyms or make up his own phrases, he will do it to avoid semantic arguments. Sometimes, we get it. Sometimes, we don’t, but it still stands that his style is unrivalled. The only thing it obfuscates is his accessibility.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 16:24:00 UTC

  • I think I am going to do a quick video or audio or live chat tomorrow on Operati

    I think I am going to do a quick video or audio or live chat tomorrow on Operational Language. Maybe 5-10 minutes. Because I have had all of this in my head, and now that I’m trying to produce a course on it, I understand what *everyone* (not just you who follow me) have been getting ‘wrong’ with the operational revolution, and why it stalled. Its not all that complicated. But you know how anything expressible in mathematics can be expressed in ordinary language and vise-versa? But we use the symbols for purposes of brevity? Well the same is true in language. We can express in ordinary abbreviated language or in fully expanded language. And we can infer (variables) in ordinary and mathematical langauge. But by fully expanding ordinary language we can identify the variables ( inferences ). etc.

    So it’s not like I”m asking people to write in fully operational grammar. It’s that by practicing fully operational grammar you eventually won’t need to practice it any longer.

    It’s more that we need to be able to fully expand a simple sentence into operational grammar. And if we can’t do so then it can’t be ‘true’.

    So the reason to understand it is to test yourself, test others, and to write and test law. It’s not so that we actually use the stuff.

    Sort of like diagramming sentences.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-07 20:35:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.asiteaboutnothing.net/w_eprime.html

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-07 20:06:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-07 20:06:00 UTC

  • The Trivium (Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric) was developed to educate children. The Gr

    The Trivium (Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric) was developed to educate children.

    The Grammar Stage 1-4, the logic stage 5-8, and the rhetoric stage 9-12.

    How do we produce the same effect (Quickly) in adults?

    That’s what Propertarianism does. Or rather, learning to write operationally, testimonially, with propertarian ethics does. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-07 20:01:00 UTC

  • THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRAMMAR AND MEANING The ball is red. (“God language”) I p

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRAMMAR AND MEANING

    The ball is red. (“God language”)

    I prefer red. (opinion)

    I see a red ball. (statement)

    I promise I see a red ball. (promise)

    I sear that I see a red ball, and if you observe the same object you will agree that you also see a red ball. ( testimony)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-07 19:26:00 UTC

  • IT’S MY JOB, OK? It’s ok to ask questions. It’s my job. I prefer they consist of

    IT’S MY JOB, OK?

    It’s ok to ask questions. It’s my job. I prefer they consist of complete sentences. And reasonable grammar is ever-so-nice. And I don’t give job or dating advice if I can help it. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 17:32:00 UTC

  • “WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ‘USING PARENTHETICALS’?” The use of parenthesis (parentheti

    “WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ‘USING PARENTHETICALS’?”

    The use of parenthesis (parentheticals) to carry on (communicate) related (parallel) meanings (definitions) so that we both (simultaneously) convey meaning (free association), but at the same time prevent misinterpretation (provide limits).

    In other words we can carry on via positiva and via negativa in the same paragraph or sentence. Or that we may use colloquial verse, but include technical terms. It’s profoundly effective.

    If you read Popper’s work he uses italics (which was criticized at the time) for similar purposes.

    IMHO parentheticals solve the problem of choosing latin prose consisting of long sentences, consisting of many related phrases (which Claire Rae Randall has brought up recently), or separating two sides of an argument into separate paragraphs.

    Latin prose tends to be poetic in order to prevent judgment until later phrases emerge (lincoln’s gettysburg address). This becomes increasingly difficult as we speak in increasingly technical terms.

    So my opinion is that the parenthetical technique is evolving as our grammatical solution to conceptual density in technical matters, where we can more easily communicate such concepts without burdening and confusing the audience with ‘hanging incomplete ideas’ (separate paragraphs), or too many hanging incomplete ideas (many phrases), by simply limiting each positive concept as its being used (via parentheticals).

    But the operational definition would be to provide both meanings in common prose and limits in parentheticals or the reverse: provide precise terms in prose, and common examples in parenthesis, in the same sentence structure.

    Now if you read Frank’s comments on other’s posts, at all you’ll see him do both Precise/Example, and Common/Technical at the same time.

    This turns out to be what I suggest, is an almost perfect grammar. Or rather, the next evolution of grammar as we increase informaitonal density.

    Because like the common law, it ‘corrects’ or ‘informs’ you immediately without requiring that you hold multiple dense contexts in your head until they are later resolved in the text.

    My opinion, taken from Greg Bear, is that if we could talk and show flashes of images at the same time – say on our phones, or floating above our heads – then the combination of words (precision) and examples (Images) would create nearly perfect communication.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-05 08:45:00 UTC