Theme: Grammar

  • We have logic backwards. All language consists of measurements. Understood from

    We have logic backwards. All language consists of measurements. Understood from this starting point, all disciplines are particular cases of the consequences of measurement with symbolic tools of variable precision.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 10:55:00 UTC

  • albeit (conj.) late 14c., a contraction of al be it “al(though) it be (that);”

    albeit (conj.)

    late 14c., a contraction of al be it “al(though) it be (that);”


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-10 20:34:00 UTC

  • A HIERARCHY OF ARGUMENTATIVE TRUTH (repost) (very useful) (learning propertarian

    A HIERARCHY OF ARGUMENTATIVE TRUTH

    (repost) (very useful) (learning propertarianism)

    [S]o, just take the next ten arguments that you run into (not by me, I have enough work to do, demonstrate your cunning elsewhere) try to categorize which level of truth the individual is relying upon to make his or her arguments. Once you do this a few times it will become natural for you.

    1) MEANING (Awareness)

    ….True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    2) PREFERENCE

    ….True enough for me to feel good about.

    3) ACTIONABILITY

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

    4) MORALITY

    ….True enough for me to act but not cause others to react negatively to me.

    5) RATIONALITY

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

    6) DECIDEABILITY

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

    7) TRUTH

    ….True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    8) TAUTOLOGY

    ….Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    Awareness, Preference, Actionability Morality, Rationality, Decidability, Truth(parsimony), Tautology.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-08 11:56:00 UTC

  • Another Leap in Progress

    Over the past week or so I’ve had another significant insight on language and measurement.  This as simplified the epistemology significantly.

  • Another Leap in Progress

    Over the past week or so I’ve had another significant insight on language and measurement.  This as simplified the epistemology significantly.

  • Testimonial Grammar Defeats NPOV

    What if I started a wiki that required Testimonial (Operational) Grammar?  OMG.  NPOV would be destroyed in the social sciences.

  • Testimonial Grammar Defeats NPOV

    What if I started a wiki that required Testimonial (Operational) Grammar?  OMG.  NPOV would be destroyed in the social sciences.

  • It’s Not That Hard…

    IT’S NOT THAT HARD. Nearly all my arguments are constructed by definitions, use of sequences to de-conflate those definitions, and fullaccounting of the fully chain of actions and consequences. I rarely have to resort to operational grammar except in those definitions. If you use full accounting you will skew to operational gammar out of necessity of simply trying to write cogent sentences. I cant keep track of all of you any longer. There are simply too many. But I do see property in toto, operational language and full accounting creeping into all sorts of your posts and comments. It’s infectious. It will change you forever – for the better.

  • It’s Not That Hard…

    IT’S NOT THAT HARD. Nearly all my arguments are constructed by definitions, use of sequences to de-conflate those definitions, and fullaccounting of the fully chain of actions and consequences. I rarely have to resort to operational grammar except in those definitions. If you use full accounting you will skew to operational gammar out of necessity of simply trying to write cogent sentences. I cant keep track of all of you any longer. There are simply too many. But I do see property in toto, operational language and full accounting creeping into all sorts of your posts and comments. It’s infectious. It will change you forever – for the better.

  • Challenges in Teaching Propertarianism

    When you are teaching people an advanced subject like testimonialism, acquisitionism, propertarianism, or market government, one of the most common pitfalls a professor must avoid, is anchoring the student and freezing his innovations, while at the same time, gently correcting errors so that he or she continues to advance, but does not become dependent upon you. This is extremely difficult. The second problem is getting them past their limits. They generally hit their limits when they surpass the use of the technology (subject) to justify prior dispositions, and instead must now abandon their intuitions and priors – and rely on the logic of the system exclusively without the ability to test against the intuitions provided by their priors

    It’s at this point they generally freeze or fail, or grow frustrated, because they do not realize that they have been relying upon intuition, and merely learning a superior means of justifying their priors until now. Making the leap from using a logic to justify one’s priors, to the full dependence upon that logic despite it’s falsification of your priors is difficult – and more difficult the older you are (it certainly was hard for me). So some people progress fastest because they are simply learning how to justify priors, and can rely on testing propositions against memory and intuition. Others progress more slowly because they must constantly reform their intuitions and priors. The problem for the former is that they tend to have become used to ‘easy’ adoption of the technology and instead of incremental adjustment they must do all the work of self transition at once. This is why it is somewhat easier for us aspies because we actually tend to have few intuitionistic priors, and are more comfortable with fully rational or empirical statements independent upon reliance upon intuitions and priors. I can, by temperament, identify who will hit the wall, but not when – until I see it starting to occur. But it is almost impossible to break people through that wall. They must do it on their own. And in my experience, most of them fail. ( Unfortunately, some of them direct their frustration at me. This is understandable. It is however, unwarranted. ) So what can I learn from this? Well, it is one thing to look for participants to help me advance the work, and another to ask people learn a complete system. Luckily there are some people who are not bound by priors. Although very small in number. I can help people by completing the work rather than asking them to participate. This eliminates me as the axis, makes the courseware the axis. But in the end, truth is merciless to priors. And few people are sufficiently transcendent, and possess sufficient agency to abandon their priors – especially those who have invested so heavily in the argumentative justification of them.