Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • 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

  • IT’S NOT THAT HARD. Nearly all my arguments are constructed by definitions, use

    IT’S NOT THAT HARD.

    Nearly all my arguments are constructed by definitions, use of sequences to de-conflate those definitions, and full accounting 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.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 12:28:00 UTC

  • NUMBERS: POSITIONAL NAMES OF CONSTANT RELATIONS. MATH: THE SCIENCE OF MEASUREMEN

    NUMBERS: POSITIONAL NAMES OF CONSTANT RELATIONS. MATH: THE SCIENCE OF MEASUREMENT OF RELATIONS BY THE USE OF CONSTANT RELATIONS. EXTENSIONS OF ORDINARY LANGUAGE

    Nouns are names. Numbers are names. Numbers are nouns. Numbers evolved as positional names: Nouns.

    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 ordinary 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

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-27 09:43:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) Actually, yes German is a guttural and ‘costly’ language to spe

    (from elsewhere)

    Actually, yes German is a guttural and ‘costly’ language to speak. All languages mature by the same means from the most guttural (semitic/arabic) to the less so (russian, ukrainian), to the less so, (german/polish/french), to the less so (italian, spanish). Each evolutionary step rotates more costly sounds for less costly sounds. So while german may be more advanced than Dutch, it is less advanced than english and far less than Italian. I would agree that German is probably the ‘best’ language on earth at present – un-hobbled as is english by the mixture of old german, old french, and old latin that is today’s English. And I would agree (aside from post-war self-hatred and loss of and appreciation for aristocracy) that german culture was and probably has been for the past millennium, the best culture on earth (because of the remnants of the ‘oath’). And yes, I would agree that there is a great difference between the age and pronunciation of a language and the content of ideas expressed in its vocabulary. And yes, I would agree that we can see the future of german language losing the guttural, and moving forward on the palate, in rapid casual speech. But at present, yes, its guttural, and sounds ‘primitive’ to those cultures that have lost the guttural.

    I consider German the ‘best’ language, despite the, …, retention of primitive pronunciation. In part because of its use of compounds rather than adding new terms. In part because of its construction. In part because of its content. But must of all, because it’s METAPHYSICAL content: the patterns of assumptions and values in the vocabulary.

    Unfortunately, german retains gendered nouns and grammar, as well as guttural pronunciation (Russian is far worse).

    English degrades relatively gracefully, because it requires about 300 words to speak about almost anything, but one increases vocabulary for greater precision, not GRAMMAR. And the vocabulary is currently around 1M words. (the vast majority of which, I admit to knowing.) The spelling retention is partly to signal the reader which root language it’s from: German (farmer), French(ruler), Latin or Greek(intellectual).

    I’ve seen most people struggle with the ‘precision’ of english. in particular the propositions. English is a high precision low context language, that is not fault tolerant. it is very good for law, logic, and software programming for that reason. (just as german is better for sentimental prose).

    if we taught english with a little role-play, so that the spelling signaled which person (common-farmer, court-ruler, scholar-intellectual) was speaking and in which accent, it would probably help quite a bit.

    Besides the enormous vocabulary, english is very sensitive to manners (graces) because of our hierarchical class history. So we have all sorts of polite speech that is required, where in german Bitte’ serves many purposes. One of the things I like about english is the signaling of status cues as a means of conveying one’s degree of culture. I find this frustrating in some other languages because I use those english subtleties and I can’t in other languages.

    Anyway.

    Between english, german, and italian you pretty much can get the best of all worlds. And despite my ancestry I find very little good to say about french other than it’s what happens when posturing and effeminate signaling develop into a substitute for merit in mind, body, and achievement.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-25 08:50:00 UTC

  • What Did Americans Sound Like In The Late 18th And Early 19th Centuries, And When Did The Recognizable “general American” Accent Come Into Being? Did Americans Sound British In The 1700’s And 1800’s? If Not, What Did Americans Sound Like?

    Mis-stated question. Instead: When did american accents begin to develop? From the very beginning.

    The american east coast was formed by four different groups of immigrants from different areas of Britain who already spoke with different accents. (To us they would all sound much more gaelic than british do today.) These groups spread in horizontal bands across the united states, and the cultural horizontal ‘bands’ in the country reflect the westward expansion of those early settlers, and how they carried their languages with them.

    The intentional ‘middle atlantic’ accent was something you learned, just like received pronunciation in the UK until the underclass revolution of the 1960’s, the marxists, postmodernists, attempted to undermine all western aristocratic values.

    Universities attempted to quash dialects for the competitive marketability of their students, and radio, then television assisted in the homogenization of the ‘Indiana’ pronunciation throughout most of the country exclusive of the lower classes. Most of this dramatic homogenization has come about since 1980.

    Our accents may not sound as distinct to others as do those of different regions of the UK, particularly in the underclasses. But in the states, your vocabulary, body language, and pronunciation are your primary forms of status signaling, and we can tell, most of the time, at least which region if not which state or city each of us is from.

    The most interesting property of american pronunciation is probably the least discussed, and least well known, which is that the majority of white americans are of germanic rather than anglo extraction. And so the american speech pattern inherited german monotonality rather than british and gaelic tonal accents.

    So Americans speak the vocabulary and grammar of the english language with rather dry german pronunciation so to speak. If you hear English in the Gaelic or the Old English, it’s more melodic. There is a tempo to it. It’s more expressive.

    When I teach people from melodic backgrounds how to speak english (particularly Indians), I tell them to practice: speak like a robot-voice in the same tone, deep in your chest, with continuous air, and beat your chest every syllable at a constant rate – and while it sounds silly, this technique will teach you the proper pace of english speech.

    If you look at this map, you’ll see the westward migration of the dialects as we spread westward.

    ( PS: As an aside, the actor who Portrays John Adams was chosen, as is common in Hollywood representation of the Founders, as a means of insulting the great man. He had more in common with a Field Marshal than he did that wimpy little fellow. Founders were tough, hardened, empirical people. On a scale we cannot imagine today, because no one like them exists today. )

    https://www.quora.com/What-did-Americans-sound-like-in-the-late-18th-and-early-19th-centuries-and-when-did-the-recognizable-General-American-accent-come-into-being-Did-Americans-sound-British-in-the-1700’s-and-1800’s-If-not-what-did-Americans-sound-like

  • The Circle of Literature

    THE CIRCLE OF LITERATURE Mythical Literature (supernormalism) .. Narrative Literature (hypothetical normalism) .. .. Historical Literature (normalism) .. .. .. Biographical Literature .. .. .. .. Legal Literature .. .. .. .. .. Scientific Literature .. .. .. .. Essay Literature (personal literature) .. .. .. Philosophical Literature .. .. Religious Literature (Supernatural authoritarianism) .. Fantasy Literature (supernaturalism) (loop)

  • The Circle of Literature

    THE CIRCLE OF LITERATURE Mythical Literature (supernormalism) .. Narrative Literature (hypothetical normalism) .. .. Historical Literature (normalism) .. .. .. Biographical Literature .. .. .. .. Legal Literature .. .. .. .. .. Scientific Literature .. .. .. .. Essay Literature (personal literature) .. .. .. Philosophical Literature .. .. Religious Literature (Supernatural authoritarianism) .. Fantasy Literature (supernaturalism) (loop)

  • LETS LOOK AT ARGUMENT VS ARGUMENTATION ETHICS. Argument: the use of statement to

    LETS LOOK AT ARGUMENT VS ARGUMENTATION ETHICS.

    Argument:

    the use of statement to construct an hypothesis and eliminate error, for the purpose of persuasion in order to choose between interpersonal avoidance, cooperation, parasitism, or violence, or personal inaction, action, or delay.

    Argumentation:

    the action or process of reasoning systematically in support of an idea, action, or theory. (IOW: Abstraction of Argument)

    Argumentation Ethics:

    —“Hoppe states that because honest argumentation aimed at resolving a conflict over scarce resources must presuppose various norms including non-violence to be meaningful, then it follows that propositions propounded during such argumentation cannot contradict these norms, from which, he claims, the non aggression principle can be logically derived. So Hoppe claims that to deny the non aggression principle during such argumentation is a performative contradiction between one’s actions and one’s words. For example, to argue that violence should be used to resolve conflicts is an obvious performative contradiction if one is to engage in a meaningful argument to resolve such a conflict.”— Wiki

    OK, NOW LET’S BREAK THIS DOWN A BIT (IT’S HARD)

    Presuppositions (requirements)

    – honest argument

    – promise of non violence

    in other words, an already existing contract for cooperation eschewing deceit (honest argument, non-coercion-by-fraud) and violence (non-coercion-by-violence), and unstated (non-theft-independent of coercion)

    Evidence Instead:

    – arguments consist of negotiations in pursuit of wants, not truths independent of wants.

    – it is almost impossible for people to construct arguments that are truthful, and instead, people engage in ignorance, bias, suggestion, and deceit.

    – Violence is just another input to negotiations, and is always ‘available’ unless a third party insurer demands and warrants restitution(theft), punishment(harm) or death(ostrasization).

    So, for Argumentation ETHICS to exist, we must be within a contract for cooperation, insured by a third party. For argument to exist requires only humans. For truthful argument we require a means (skill or technology) for the purpose of testing whether arguments are in fact, honest and truthful – even if we can never know if they are in fact true since we are never possessed of perfect information.

    So lets fully expand these sentences:

    “Those who are already in an agreement not to engage in parasitism through violence, theft, and fraud, demonstrate that they agree not to engage in parasitism through violence, theft, and fraud, by engaging in truthful argument, and as such the use of truthful argument demonstrates that non aggression against (some scope of) property in and of itself serves as a test of a contract for reciprocity (non aggression).”

    Yeah. That’s what’s called a very elaborate tautology. A circular definition. Which is OK. Because all he’s saying that non-aggression is a sufficient rule of thumb for simple people, even if he hasn’t deduced from CAUSALITY, because if he did, he would have to admit that the scope of property necessary for non aggression within a polity is pretty much ‘everything’ (what we call ‘property-in-toto’) in order to prohibit enough conflict that we would eliminate the demand for a state to impose cultural, normative institutional laws upon us. In other words, by RATIONALIZATION from internal consistency rather than from construction by operational causality hoppe makes it impossible to determine the scope of property necessary to eliminate demand for the state to impose rules of the commons both physical and normative.

    How about this instead:

    Use of honest and truthful argument in a court of law under a third party insurer, and under some scope of property, wherein we prohibit the imposition of costs against that property, and provide the court as a means of dispute resolution, restitution, punishment and ostracization, in order to prevent retaliation cycles that will cumulatively destroy the market created by the polity’s insurer’s market for dispute resolution, can be summarized in the general rule of thumb: dont aggress against that scope of property, and the fact that you are arguing in a court over it rather than engaging in violence, theft, or fraud instead, demonstrates the sufficiency of the above methods, which are reducible to: don’t aggress against life, and property.

    To which I would argue we must add “don’t aggress against life, property, commons, norm, institution, tradition, and myth’, because all of those aggressions produce the violent retaliation that non aggression as a test of the basis for law demonstrably advocates.

    In other words, hoppe is showing that the argument is in fact circular, but only once we have established such a contract in the first place, And therefor he does not include the CAUSAL: People fucking lie, cheat, defraud, bribe, externalize costs, conspire, free ride, socialize losses and privatize gains, engage in propaganda, conversion, asymmetric and therefore parasitic reproduction, immigration, warfare, conquest, and genocide.

    I don’t play this game.

    I start with:

    1) “Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff? (Ethics).

    2) And “why don’t we kill you, your sons, and rape and enslave your women?” (Politics)

    3) “Why should I invest in a corporation, rather than in my kin?” (Government)

    4) And “Why don’t we conquer, enslave and sterilize your people, so that our people can prosper further? (Group Evolutionary Strategy)

    The reason being, that the scope of law necessary to eliminate demand for the state is equal to the scope of law necessary to eliminate the incentives to engage in violence against that which I have born a cost.

    And why? BEcause people will not pay the high cost of creating a higher trust social order than their neighbours, and therefore one that produces greater prosperity and security if it is possible for invaders to constantly lower that level of trust by claiming that only private physical property is protected, instead of all that individuals and groups invest in.

    Thus Endeth The Lesson

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-18 10:44:00 UTC

  • Why Our Religion Fails

    LANGUAGES, GRAMMAR, VOCABULARY, MEANING, KNOWLEDGE AND THE TECHNOLOGY OF TESTING MEANING (why our religion fails) It was a very long time ago, and that the levant was a very poor and backward ghetto of the empire, and that while we had roman rule, law, and commerce, and greek philosophy, reason, mathematics, the primitive people had only their primitive language to speak with and they did the best that they could – they spoke in primitive language. Like the few primitive people living today, they had no reason, no philosophy, no science, no mathematics. And so they had to say something was good or ‘true’ because it was commanded by the gods, not because it was reasonably comprehensible, rationally consistent, philosophically sound, scientifically demonstrable, or mathematically consistent. They had only ‘because the boss says so’ to use as ‘this is true’. We can, today, say the same things without primitive language, and by making truth claims using reason, rationalism, philosophy, science and mathematics. But … our words, grammar, and pronunciation, are not the only content of language, but the meaning, values and emotions that we describe with those sounds, to produce those words, using that grammar. So just as we have difficulty losing our accents, and our grammar, we have difficulty losing the ideas that we learned with which to produce those sounds, words, grammar and language. We all have trouble losing our vocalized and intuited ‘accents’ – what we call ‘biases’. They are the foundations upon which all our consequential words, sentences, paragraphs, and stories depend. So just as the chinese sound very differently from region to region, yet use the same character set for writing, we can, in the same culture, do similarly: use the same words and grammar despite very different meanings, and values in our minds that we describe them with. And so, if someone is raised using english, but learns archaic semitic parables; or someone is raised using english but learns historical and biographical parables; or someone is raised using english but learns scientific and mathematical principles “parables”, then these are very different internal meanings using very similar words. The difference between the ancient parables, the historical parables, and the scientific parables, is that we can empathize with anthropomorphized parables without much general knowledge, empathize a bit less with historical parables with quite a bit of general knowledge, and empathize with sciences only if we possess very specific knowledge in addition to general knowledge. So that the cost of learning to speak each language increases in time, and effort. And so we tell primitive people and children parables of animals and people and gods and heroes. We tell young adults rules that require reason. We tell adults about law that is internally consistent requiring rationalism. We educate specialists in the sciences where specialized knowledge is necessary. And the old and wise, among us who have studied all of the parables, the histories, the laws, and the sciences, can try to provide answers for all those groups in the languages that they can hopefully one day understand. Once you grasp that we use spoken languages with common, uncommon, and specialized terms, across all people in a political system. But within that system we use multiple languages of MEANING. And that each of these languages of meaning, relies upon that universal spoken language; and that each of these languages of meaning uses a technology of ‘validation’ or ‘truth testing’, that varies from the primitive and experiential, and anthropomorphic, to the historical analogy, to the legal evidence, to the scientifically precise; and that it requires much more knowledge and often, much more intelligence, for each additional level of precision that we add on top of the anthropomorphic. Then you realize that while we use the same basic words and grammar, we do not use the same vocabularies; and that vocabularies tell us which technology of understanding that a person relies upon, the relative inferiority or superiority of that language in solving problems of increasing precision; how much general knowledge is requires for that person to retain that technology of meaning; and the likelihood of the intelligence of that person who employs that technology of meaning. And this is what we do. We form hierarchies and classes and each class uses the same root spoken language and grammar, but uses the language of meaning suited to his upbringing, his degree of ability, and his degree of accumulated knowledge. So we do not only judge people by their dress, and by their body language, and by their manners, but by the spoken language, and language of meaning that they rely upon. Because these are demonstrated rather than reported evidence of the person who acts, speaks, and thinks by those dress, actions, manners, and words.

  • Why Our Religion Fails

    LANGUAGES, GRAMMAR, VOCABULARY, MEANING, KNOWLEDGE AND THE TECHNOLOGY OF TESTING MEANING (why our religion fails) It was a very long time ago, and that the levant was a very poor and backward ghetto of the empire, and that while we had roman rule, law, and commerce, and greek philosophy, reason, mathematics, the primitive people had only their primitive language to speak with and they did the best that they could – they spoke in primitive language. Like the few primitive people living today, they had no reason, no philosophy, no science, no mathematics. And so they had to say something was good or ‘true’ because it was commanded by the gods, not because it was reasonably comprehensible, rationally consistent, philosophically sound, scientifically demonstrable, or mathematically consistent. They had only ‘because the boss says so’ to use as ‘this is true’. We can, today, say the same things without primitive language, and by making truth claims using reason, rationalism, philosophy, science and mathematics. But … our words, grammar, and pronunciation, are not the only content of language, but the meaning, values and emotions that we describe with those sounds, to produce those words, using that grammar. So just as we have difficulty losing our accents, and our grammar, we have difficulty losing the ideas that we learned with which to produce those sounds, words, grammar and language. We all have trouble losing our vocalized and intuited ‘accents’ – what we call ‘biases’. They are the foundations upon which all our consequential words, sentences, paragraphs, and stories depend. So just as the chinese sound very differently from region to region, yet use the same character set for writing, we can, in the same culture, do similarly: use the same words and grammar despite very different meanings, and values in our minds that we describe them with. And so, if someone is raised using english, but learns archaic semitic parables; or someone is raised using english but learns historical and biographical parables; or someone is raised using english but learns scientific and mathematical principles “parables”, then these are very different internal meanings using very similar words. The difference between the ancient parables, the historical parables, and the scientific parables, is that we can empathize with anthropomorphized parables without much general knowledge, empathize a bit less with historical parables with quite a bit of general knowledge, and empathize with sciences only if we possess very specific knowledge in addition to general knowledge. So that the cost of learning to speak each language increases in time, and effort. And so we tell primitive people and children parables of animals and people and gods and heroes. We tell young adults rules that require reason. We tell adults about law that is internally consistent requiring rationalism. We educate specialists in the sciences where specialized knowledge is necessary. And the old and wise, among us who have studied all of the parables, the histories, the laws, and the sciences, can try to provide answers for all those groups in the languages that they can hopefully one day understand. Once you grasp that we use spoken languages with common, uncommon, and specialized terms, across all people in a political system. But within that system we use multiple languages of MEANING. And that each of these languages of meaning, relies upon that universal spoken language; and that each of these languages of meaning uses a technology of ‘validation’ or ‘truth testing’, that varies from the primitive and experiential, and anthropomorphic, to the historical analogy, to the legal evidence, to the scientifically precise; and that it requires much more knowledge and often, much more intelligence, for each additional level of precision that we add on top of the anthropomorphic. Then you realize that while we use the same basic words and grammar, we do not use the same vocabularies; and that vocabularies tell us which technology of understanding that a person relies upon, the relative inferiority or superiority of that language in solving problems of increasing precision; how much general knowledge is requires for that person to retain that technology of meaning; and the likelihood of the intelligence of that person who employs that technology of meaning. And this is what we do. We form hierarchies and classes and each class uses the same root spoken language and grammar, but uses the language of meaning suited to his upbringing, his degree of ability, and his degree of accumulated knowledge. So we do not only judge people by their dress, and by their body language, and by their manners, but by the spoken language, and language of meaning that they rely upon. Because these are demonstrated rather than reported evidence of the person who acts, speaks, and thinks by those dress, actions, manners, and words.