Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • THE REASON FOR ALL THIS AUTISTIC DEFLATIONARY EFFORT It is the nature of an auti

    THE REASON FOR ALL THIS AUTISTIC DEFLATIONARY EFFORT

    It is the nature of an autistic (deflationary, context-independent, norm independent) mind to break everything into the smallest possible constituent parts: where causality is determined (axiomatic or closed causality), and to find comprehensibility at that level of detail. Yet still recognize that normals cannot comprehend at that level of detail. And to be frustrated that no abstraction of that level of detail will convey the information present at that level of detail without the introduction of error.

    I have come to think of that level of detail as ‘context-free’ description; and to think of normie-levels of detail as ‘context-dependent’ levels of detail.

    So this is why, when I have an individual or group to talk to, I can listen to them a bit and determine their frames of reference – their ‘contexts’ – then I can reframe the argument for their context.

    What I am NOT good at (and you and others are much better at) is determining a NORMATIVE CONTEXT to use in lieu of the interpersonal context we obtain during discourse.

    So this is why I require such precise definitions: to create a categorically consistent, an internally consistent, externally correspondent, and existentially consistent, and scope(scale) limited, thereby creating a fully correspondent context.

    And this is why I take so much time and work so hard to produce so many series and lists, and so many aphorisms, that state both via positiva and via negativa such that balance and completeness are contained in a pithy statement of observation.

    The great Chinese philosophers (Confucius and Lao Tzu) probably failed for no other reason than Chinese is a high context low precision language. But they managed to create so many aphorisms and riddles to accomplish by suggestion that which cannot be stated in their language with precision free of context.

    Efficient communication requires context and suggestion and truthful communication requires their absence. Loading communicates one’s value attributions. Framing narrows normative context and can be used to justify one’s decisions or to deceive.

    Or very simply, it takes three points to test a line, a series to test a definition, the combination of via-positiva, and via-negativa assertions to test a statement, and a full accounting using all of the above to test an argument.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 09:44:00 UTC

  • STUFF I WISH I COULD HAVE SAID: —“Propertarianism is ridiculously easy to summ

    STUFF I WISH I COULD HAVE SAID:

    —“Propertarianism is ridiculously easy to summarize: a system [of terms and grammar] that makes what subtle social investments are linguistically possible to make commensurable, commensurable.

    The further simplification of even that: a system of cooperation through mutual understanding.

    The further simplification of even that: “How we can get what we both want.”

    The further simplification of even that: “How we can help each other.”—Josh Jeppson

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 16:35:00 UTC

  • HOW TO ASK CURT TO EXPLAIN ‘GIBBERISH’ (DENSE) ARGUMENTS – AND WHY THEY ARE DENS

    HOW TO ASK CURT TO EXPLAIN ‘GIBBERISH’ (DENSE) ARGUMENTS – AND WHY THEY ARE DENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE

    —“Regarding: “I will venture you do not understand the necessary meaning of politics rather than the conventional,” You are babbling gibberish as always. What does this sentence mean?”— Joseph Nerevar

    It’s not gibberish, its very dense, but thank you for asking.

    In the future, the ‘gentlemanly’ way to ask a question is:

    “Curt can you *unpack* that sentence or paragraph for me?”

    Necessary, vs academic, vs traditional, vs normative, vs colloquial language. By necessary I refer to ‘what it can mean’ versus what we mean academically, traditionally, normatively, or colloqually.

    The principle function of Testimonialism (the funny way I talk) is to speak in very precise language so that you can’t fool yourself (or others) into thinking you know what you’re talking about (or lying).

    We use a particular technique when defining terms, that is a bit complicated for me to repeat here. But just as I listed Necessary, academic, traditional, normative and colloquial above as a *series* of terms, when we use any term we create a series (list) that includes it, and then we define each term as a series of human actions (and decisions) using a particularly rigid grammar (sentence structure, and vocabulary), where we list what states of property people are trying to change, and whether they are doing so honestly and truthfully or not, and what degree of precision they are using (scientific to literary to supernatural for example). The end product is a very clear set of definitions that cannot be used to ‘hide’ attempted thefts (or frauds or whatever).

    In the case of ‘politics’, we use this word in an ancient sense, but conflate it (mix it up in colloquial language) as if it’s a catch-all for ‘stuff related to government. What politics means of necessity (scientifically), is a means by which groups organize to construct commons (territory, capital, organizations, goods, services, information and institutions).

    But what groups? Groups that have the choice to organize a MARKET for the production of commons, or a deciding body that does so, or a dictator that does so?

    The west made use of markets for the production of commons at different scales – almost always locally, and as often as possible in government. We made markets in everything: association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of the resolution of disputes (law), production of polities, and war.

    How many other civilizations used politics (markets?) in everything? And why is it that we developed reason, a science of politics, common law, republicanism and democracy, and why are those methods almost unique to the west?

    Politics: the operations of a market for construction of commons.

    Rule is something else altogether.

    Ergo, where we use the word Politics, other civilizations use Rule. And we do not ourselves even understand the necessary meaning of the word that we use.

    Hence why democracy has been conducted as a war on rule of law, in order to end the market for the construction of commons, and replace it, like all other civilizations have, with discretionary rule.

    CLOSING

    So you see, what you ‘hear’ as gibberish is a scientific language, but because you are used to speaking morally (intuitively) about these subjects, you hear this very technical method of argument and react to it, where if we were talking about chemistry or physics, or mathematics, or epistemology, you would simply accept that they are terms that you don’t know.

    I speak, and those who follow me learn to speak, in truthful (scientific) language, where meanings are precise, just like any other professional discipline.

    Now …. do you expect me to write this kind of detail in every argument that I make, or do I have your permission to speak in dense language for those who grasp it, and leave open the opportunity for explanation for those who are curious but lack the knowledge to comprehend it on their own?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 12:35:00 UTC

  • EXAMPLE: THE IMPORTANCE OF SERIES ‘hate on’ (v. slang) To express hatred toward.

    EXAMPLE: THE IMPORTANCE OF SERIES

    ‘hate on’ (v. slang)

    To express hatred toward.

    ‘hate’ v.

    The feeling we experience towards those who betray us, steal from us, threaten us, harm us, and whom we desire to harm more so, even to the point of paying the high cost of altruistic punishment. (Hate evolved as the extreme retaliation against violations of reciprocity.)

    ‘anger’ v.

    ( … )

    ‘dislike’ v.

    That feeling we experience toward others who betray us ethically or morally, by violating reciprocity, such that we seek to boycott all offers or opportunities to cooperate with them.

    ‘disapprove’ v.

    The feeling we experience towards others who take unethical, immoral, actions by violating reciprocity by imposing costs upon others directly, ethically by informational asymmetry, or morally, by externality.

    ‘reject’ / ‘rejection’ v.

    That feeling we experience toward others whose offers of cooperation are undesirable either directly, ethically by asymmetry, or morally by externality.

    ‘tolerate’ v.

    ( … )

    ‘negotiate’ v.

    ( … )

    ‘accomodate’ v.

    ( … )

    ‘cooperate’ v.

    ( … )

    ‘give preference’ v.

    ( … )

    ‘advocate’ v.

    ( … )

    …

    ‘love’ v.

    ( … )

    From bearing costs to punish(hate), to bear costs to advance(love).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 11:32:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism: Datatypes, Operations, Grammar, Syntax

    PROPERTARIANISM: DataTypes, Operations, Grammar, Syntax Think of Propertarianism as a programming language consisting of data types, operations, grammar, and syntax. if you can ‘write a program’ that ‘computes’ (is operationally constructable’) with those data types, operations, grammar, and syntax, then you can write a formal description of any phenomenon open to human experience in the language of natural law. You cannot do math without understanding it, and you can’t write software without understanding it, and you can’t write natural law without understanding it. I mean… you’d honestly have to be a simpleton to think that you’re going to learn this FAST. you’ll learn it as fast as you could learn to program. If you can program you can simply do it faster because you’ve learned VERY SIMPLE VERSIONS of the form of operational logic of transformations that exist in propertarianism: Natural Law

  • Propertarianism: Datatypes, Operations, Grammar, Syntax

    PROPERTARIANISM: DataTypes, Operations, Grammar, Syntax Think of Propertarianism as a programming language consisting of data types, operations, grammar, and syntax. if you can ‘write a program’ that ‘computes’ (is operationally constructable’) with those data types, operations, grammar, and syntax, then you can write a formal description of any phenomenon open to human experience in the language of natural law. You cannot do math without understanding it, and you can’t write software without understanding it, and you can’t write natural law without understanding it. I mean… you’d honestly have to be a simpleton to think that you’re going to learn this FAST. you’ll learn it as fast as you could learn to program. If you can program you can simply do it faster because you’ve learned VERY SIMPLE VERSIONS of the form of operational logic of transformations that exist in propertarianism: Natural Law

  • Deflationary Language in Ethics

    Mar 01, 2017 6:51pm James Augustus I suspect one of the factors contributing to deflationary language in ethics, law and science is that we needed a rational, empirical means of decidability in matters concerning rule, organization and extra-familial cooperation. (Note that legal realism, contractualism and truth telling (science and it’s precursors) coincided with conquest and colonization of non-kin groups. Myth (context driven means of decidability) doesn’t scale past regulating/adjudicating tribal and familia affairs; Natural Law does because it serves as the only universally decidable means of adjudication between heterogeneous peoples.) On the institutional level, the West was blessed with a geography that produced a high frequency of warfare in a manner that made institutional monopolies evolutionarily disadvantageous. An institution was able to survive if it wasn’t conflated with the current power structure (think of the Church and it’s relation to political power during the Middle Ages). In othewords, the incentive for institutions was to secure their existence by remaining autonomous/separated from the institutions of rule scince there was constant and frequent shifts in political power—the opposite of China. These are just loose thoughts. I’ve been mulling this over in hopes that I can write a more formal evolutionary argument for Western Dynamism.

  • No, EPrime isn’t Enough. It’s Just a Good Start

    Mar 10, 2017 5:54pm NO, EPRIME ISN’T ENOUGH. BUT IT’S A GOOD START –“Is E prime *really* that great? I’ve spent a lot of time messing around with shorthand, concept maps, and a bunch of other tools in an effort to improve the quality of my thinking. Is it really as simple as eliminating certain verbs from the way I present ideas?”— A Friend Eprime provides us with an explanation of WHY we can lie so easily using the verb to be, and by doing so pretend we speak with authority about that which we know little or nothing – or worse, engage in the suggestion, false dichotomies, and obcurantism which constitute the majority of sophomoric philosophical questions. The grammar (which I posted last week or the week before) plus abandoning the use of the verb to be, plus operational language, plus property in toto, plus limits and full accounting just make it very, very, very difficult to carry on a pretense of knowledge when you don’t possess it. So no, EPrime isn’t enough, but it’s a whole lot. There is a difference between writing well, and writing proofs. We are working at writing proofs

  • No, EPrime isn’t Enough. It’s Just a Good Start

    Mar 10, 2017 5:54pm NO, EPRIME ISN’T ENOUGH. BUT IT’S A GOOD START –“Is E prime *really* that great? I’ve spent a lot of time messing around with shorthand, concept maps, and a bunch of other tools in an effort to improve the quality of my thinking. Is it really as simple as eliminating certain verbs from the way I present ideas?”— A Friend Eprime provides us with an explanation of WHY we can lie so easily using the verb to be, and by doing so pretend we speak with authority about that which we know little or nothing – or worse, engage in the suggestion, false dichotomies, and obcurantism which constitute the majority of sophomoric philosophical questions. The grammar (which I posted last week or the week before) plus abandoning the use of the verb to be, plus operational language, plus property in toto, plus limits and full accounting just make it very, very, very difficult to carry on a pretense of knowledge when you don’t possess it. So no, EPrime isn’t enough, but it’s a whole lot. There is a difference between writing well, and writing proofs. We are working at writing proofs

  • The Importance of Parentheticals, Series, and Axes

    WRITING IN PARENTHETICALS, SERIES, AND AXES (grammar) I learned the technique of writing with series(sequences) and parenthetic parallels(like this) from Karl Popper (Critical Rationalism). And it was his adoption and use of of series rather than sets that distinguished Popper from the Analytic school. I did not understand originally what was superior about his approach to analytic philosophy, but I understood he had improved upon it. I only understood that he had identified that science was critical not justificationary (like morality and law), and that along with Hayek they were the first to grasp that social science like physical science, must be modeled as a problem of information, not an analogistic model from of prior generations(electricity, steam, water, mechanicals) – just as I understand our problem today is an artifact of industrialization and the attempt to manufacture identical units rather than ‘grow’ a portfolio of the best humans. Later I came to understand that both parenthetic parallels, series, and relations between axis (think supply demand curves), provided tests of the NECESSITY of meaning, rather than NORMATIVE or COLLOQUIAL meaning. In other words, they limit the reader (and the author) from malattribution of properties that occur in normative and colloquial, and particular, and ‘ignorant’ speech.