Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • 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.

  • Grow Up. There Is Only One Truthful Language

    YEAH. GROW UP. THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTHFUL LANGUAGE. Yeah, I understand that religion and occult, and psychologism, and this kind of literary version of ‘numerology’ is helpful to some people but it’s all nonsense. All words are excuses. People act according to costs, assets, opportunities, and incentives. Whatever words they make up to make excuses for choosing among them is just more Egyptian/babylonian/semitic/hindu drivel.
    If you can’t say it from the chinese philosophers, you can’t say it reasonably. If you can’t say it from the western philosophers and lawyers you can’t say it rationally, and If you can’t say it from the western scientists you can’t say it truthfully. The ‘middle earth’ f-ckers have been a cancer on humanity forever. They still are. The cancer survives. It survives in fictionalism in its occult, religious, psychological, pseudo-rational, and pseudo-scientific forms. All conflation may provide meaning at the cost of deception and the manufacture of further ignorance. Deflation is more costly but provides truth and it is with truth we defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, distance, and sarcity.

  • Grow Up. There Is Only One Truthful Language

    YEAH. GROW UP. THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTHFUL LANGUAGE. Yeah, I understand that religion and occult, and psychologism, and this kind of literary version of ‘numerology’ is helpful to some people but it’s all nonsense. All words are excuses. People act according to costs, assets, opportunities, and incentives. Whatever words they make up to make excuses for choosing among them is just more Egyptian/babylonian/semitic/hindu drivel.
    If you can’t say it from the chinese philosophers, you can’t say it reasonably. If you can’t say it from the western philosophers and lawyers you can’t say it rationally, and If you can’t say it from the western scientists you can’t say it truthfully. The ‘middle earth’ f-ckers have been a cancer on humanity forever. They still are. The cancer survives. It survives in fictionalism in its occult, religious, psychological, pseudo-rational, and pseudo-scientific forms. All conflation may provide meaning at the cost of deception and the manufacture of further ignorance. Deflation is more costly but provides truth and it is with truth we defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, distance, and sarcity.

  • Information, Measurement, Negotiation

    Man as the measure of all things man Actually, the concept I am working on is whether we have everything backwards, and language consists entirely of measurements of different degrees of precision, and mathematics and operations are merely more precise measurements than we are familiar with speaking of. What does it mean to measure? Man is the unit of measure for all he measures. The limits of his existence, perception, action, and comprehension, provides him with units of measure. Measurements provide us with constant relations. All our other methods of measurement merely extend the constant relations provided by the limits constraining the existence, perception, action, and comprehension of man. This appears to be the correct model.

  • Information, Measurement, Negotiation

    Man as the measure of all things man Actually, the concept I am working on is whether we have everything backwards, and language consists entirely of measurements of different degrees of precision, and mathematics and operations are merely more precise measurements than we are familiar with speaking of. What does it mean to measure? Man is the unit of measure for all he measures. The limits of his existence, perception, action, and comprehension, provides him with units of measure. Measurements provide us with constant relations. All our other methods of measurement merely extend the constant relations provided by the limits constraining the existence, perception, action, and comprehension of man. This appears to be the correct model.

  • Actually, the concept I am working on is whether we have everything backwards, a

    Actually, the concept I am working on is whether we have everything backwards, and language consists entirely of measurements of different degrees of precision, and mathematics and operations are merely more precise measurements than we are familiar with speaking of.

    This appears to be the correct model.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-01 17:43:00 UTC

  • “All your statuses make you seem like you are drunk whenever i read them i hear

    —“All your statuses make you seem like you are drunk whenever i read them i hear a drunk man rambling”—

    I understand. Comprehension can only exist as a contract requiring specific performance by both parties. You cannot provide specific performance required of you. This merely means you are too stupid to understand. But do not feel bad. You are not special. There are a lot of stupid people.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-29 14:47:00 UTC

  • YEAH. GROW UP. THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTHFUL LANGUAGE. Yeah, I understand that reli

    YEAH. GROW UP. THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTHFUL LANGUAGE.

    Yeah, I understand that religion and occult, and psychologism, and this kind of literary version of ‘numerology’ is helpful to some people but it’s all nonsense.

    All words are excuses. People act according to costs, assets, opportunities, and incentives. Whatever words they make up to make excuses for choosing among them is just more Egyptian/babylonian/semitic/hindu drivel.

    If you can’t say it from the chinese philosophers, you can’t say it reasonably. If you can’t say it from the western philosophers and lawyers you can’t say it rationally, and If you can’t say it from the western scientists you can’t say it truthfully.

    The ‘middle earth’ f-ckers have been a cancer on humanity forever. They still are. The cancer survives. It survives in fictionalism in its occult, religious, psychological, pseudo-rational, and pseudo-scientific forms.

    All conflation may provide meaning at the cost of deception and the manufacture of further ignorance. Deflation is more costly but provides truth and it is with truth we defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, distance, and sarcity.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-29 14:16:00 UTC

  • When you are teaching people an advanced subject like testimonialism, acqusition

    When you are teaching people an advanced subject like testimonialism, acqusitionism, 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.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-28 19:42:00 UTC

  • The Final Word On Numbers and Mathematics

    NUMBERS: POSITIONAL NAMES OF CONSTANT RELATIONS. MATH: THE SCIENCE OF MEASUREMENT OF RELATIONS BY THE USE OF CONSTANT RELATIONS. EXTENSIONS OF ORDINARY LANGUAGE
     
    Numbers are names. All nouns are names. Numbers evolved as positional names.
     
    We use many positional names: none, one, and some, short medium and tall; small, medium, and large; front, middle, and back; right center and left; port and starboard; daughter, mother, and grandmother;
     
    Numbers differ from nouns only in that we produce them by positional naming. Whereas early positional names varied from one two and many, to base ten, or base twelve, or in the twenties, or sixties, each which increases the demand on the human mind; the decimal system of positional naming
     
    Positional names are produced by a series of consistent operations. We call those series of consistent operations ‘functions’. By analogy we (unfortunately) called all such functions numbers: a convenient fiction.
     
    Because of positional naming all positional names (numbers) are context independent, scale independent, constant relations, descriptively parsimonious and closed to interpretation.
     
    So unlike other nouns (names), they are almost impossible to misinterpret by processes of conflation (adding information), and are impossible to further deflate (removing information).
     
    Any other information we desire to add to the noun,( by which we mean name, positional name, number) must be provided by analogy to a context: application.
     
    Numbers exist as positional names of constant relations. Those constant relations are scale independent, context dependent, informationally parsimonious, and nearly impossible to conflate with information that will allow for misinterpretation or deception.
     
    As such, numbers allow us to perform DEDUCTIONS that other names, that lack constant relations, scale independence, context dependence, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility do not. Because deduction is possible wherever constant relations, parsimony, immutability, and incorruptibility are present.
     
    As such, numbers serve as as a method of verbal reasoning within and beyond the limits of human imagination (cognition), short term memory, and ordinary reason.
     
    Numbers then are simply a very clean set of nouns(positional names), verbs (operations and functions), including tests of positional relations (comparison operators) that allow us to describe, reason and discourse about that which is otherwise beyond our ordinary language, and mental capacity.
     
    As such we distinguish language, reason, and logic from numbers and measurement, and deduction both artificially and practically. Since while they consist of the same processes, the language of numbers, measurements, and deductions is simply more precise than the language of ordinary language, reason, and logic, if for no other reason that it is nearly closed to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, deceit, and the fictionalism of superstition, pseudorationalsm, pseudoscience.
     
    Unfortunately, since to humans, that which allows them to perform such ‘seeming miracles’ that are otherwise beyond comprehension, must be justified, we invented various fictionalisms – primarily idealisms, or what philosophers refer to as platonisms – (mythologies) to explain our actions. To attribute comprehension to that which we did not comprehend. To provide authority by general rule to that which we could only demonstrate through repeated application. So mathematics maintains much of it’s ‘magical language’ and philosophers persist this magical language under the pseudo-rational label of ‘idealism’ or ‘abstraction’. Which roughly translates to “I don’t understand”.
     
    Perhaps more unfortunately, in the 19th century, with the addition of statistics and the application of mathematics to the inconstant relations of heuristic systems: particularly probability, fiat money, economics, finance, banking and commercial and tax accounting, this language no longer retains informational parsimony, and deducibility, and has instead evolved into a pseudoscience under which ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit are pervasive.
     
    Math is a very simple thing. It’s just ordinary language with positional names that allow us to give names and describe transformations to, that which is otherwise beyond our ability to imagine and recall, and therefore describe or reason with.
     
    Like everything else, if you make up stories of gods, demons, ghosts and monsters, or ‘abstractions’ or ‘ideals’ you can obscure the very simple causality that we seek to discover through science: the systematic attempt to remove error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our language of testimony about the world we perceive, cognate, remember, hypothesize within, act, advocate, negotiate, and cooperate within.
     
    Numbers are positional names of context independent, scale independent, informationally parsimonious, constant relations and mathematics consists of the grammar of that language.
     
    In other words, Math is an extension of ordinary language, ordinary reason, and ordinary science: the attempt by which we attempt to obtain information about our world within, above, and below human scale, by the use of rational and physical instrumentation, to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit from our descriptions, and as a consequence our language, and as a consequence our collective knowledge.
     
    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute