DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD: Logic is at least ternary, not binary. (Meaning three states, not two) …………… FALSE…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE FALSE…..FALSE…….FALSE……UNDECIDABLE TRUE……FALES…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE UNDEC…FALSE…….UNDEC…..UNDECIDABLE MATHEMATICS In mathematics, which for millennia was unfortunately the gold standard of logic, we use the word true when we mean either “balanced” (retaining constant relations), or we mean “proven” (possible to demonstrate), because in mathematics we create proofs of possibility rather than statements of truth. We may claim that we speak truthfully that we have constructed a proof. But mathematics consists of operations, deductions, inferences and guesswork, by which we identify means of demonstrating the possibility and necessity of a series of constant relations (ratios). COMPUTER SCIENCE In the gold standard of reasoning: computer science – when we refer to values, we call this same sequence true, false, and null (unknown). So in computer science, we either possess sufficient information to state something is provable (true or false), or unprovable (false), or undecidable (lacking the information). FORMAL LOGIC I’ll avoid deep discussion of formal logic (sets) because in my view, like all game theory, beyond use in very simple human perceivable scales, it’s been a waste of a century. I mean. I can dismantle the liars paradox in five minutes or less. it was a wasted century. PHYSICAL SCIENCE In sciences we use the terms False, Possibly True (an hypothesis, theory, or law), and Undecidable. Between the choice of true and false, it is false that we know with certainty. Truth always remains uncertain in all but the most simple of questions. EPISTEMOLOGY In epistemology we say something is knowingly false, possibly true, and undecidable, or unknown. In epistemology, just as in science, we must determine if an argument survives attempts to falsify it. If it is true, then we can decide if it is possible. I it is possible then we can decide if it is preferable. If it is preferable without causing harm to others, then we have determined that it is good. MORALITY, PHILOSOPHY, AND THEOLOGY In morality, philosophy, theology, we say (lie) that if we can find an excuse for something (a justification) it is true, or moral, or good. When that only means that according to the established norms, scriptures, and laws. in other words, one is free of blame if he can justify his actions as permissible, moral or good. In morality philosophy and theology, we attempt to survive justification. LAW When we encounter LAW we use the jury, and debate between two parties, and moderated by a judge, to test both whether we are justified under law, and whether our testimony and our arguments are believable. In law we attempt to survive the battle between three forces: the law as written, the standards of rational behavior of the jury, the logical testing of your statements by the judge, and the subjective testing of your truthfulness by the jury. And in case you don’t know this, most cases are decided by the test of truthfulness, which is why american courts are so useful for commerce. The first sin of american law is failure of informational reciprocity. Failure and error are forgivable. Violation of reciprocity is not. HIERARCHY OF CERTAINTY … FALSE, that which does not survive tests of falsification. … … TRUE, that which survives all tests of falsification … … … PROVEN, that which survives tests of possibility. … … … … UNDECIDABLE that which cannot be decided. THE TRUTH TABLE OF CERTAINTY F:False, T:True, P:Provable, U:Undecidable …..F…..T…..P…..U F…F…..F…..F…..U T…F….*T*…P…..U P…F…..P…..P…..U U..F…..U….U…..U
Theme: Grammar
-
Dear Miseducated World: Logic is at Least Ternary – not Binary
DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD: Logic is at least ternary, not binary. (Meaning three states, not two) …………… FALSE…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE FALSE…..FALSE…….FALSE……UNDECIDABLE TRUE……FALES…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE UNDEC…FALSE…….UNDEC…..UNDECIDABLE MATHEMATICS In mathematics, which for millennia was unfortunately the gold standard of logic, we use the word true when we mean either “balanced” (retaining constant relations), or we mean “proven” (possible to demonstrate), because in mathematics we create proofs of possibility rather than statements of truth. We may claim that we speak truthfully that we have constructed a proof. But mathematics consists of operations, deductions, inferences and guesswork, by which we identify means of demonstrating the possibility and necessity of a series of constant relations (ratios). COMPUTER SCIENCE In the gold standard of reasoning: computer science – when we refer to values, we call this same sequence true, false, and null (unknown). So in computer science, we either possess sufficient information to state something is provable (true or false), or unprovable (false), or undecidable (lacking the information). FORMAL LOGIC I’ll avoid deep discussion of formal logic (sets) because in my view, like all game theory, beyond use in very simple human perceivable scales, it’s been a waste of a century. I mean. I can dismantle the liars paradox in five minutes or less. it was a wasted century. PHYSICAL SCIENCE In sciences we use the terms False, Possibly True (an hypothesis, theory, or law), and Undecidable. Between the choice of true and false, it is false that we know with certainty. Truth always remains uncertain in all but the most simple of questions. EPISTEMOLOGY In epistemology we say something is knowingly false, possibly true, and undecidable, or unknown. In epistemology, just as in science, we must determine if an argument survives attempts to falsify it. If it is true, then we can decide if it is possible. I it is possible then we can decide if it is preferable. If it is preferable without causing harm to others, then we have determined that it is good. MORALITY, PHILOSOPHY, AND THEOLOGY In morality, philosophy, theology, we say (lie) that if we can find an excuse for something (a justification) it is true, or moral, or good. When that only means that according to the established norms, scriptures, and laws. in other words, one is free of blame if he can justify his actions as permissible, moral or good. In morality philosophy and theology, we attempt to survive justification. LAW When we encounter LAW we use the jury, and debate between two parties, and moderated by a judge, to test both whether we are justified under law, and whether our testimony and our arguments are believable. In law we attempt to survive the battle between three forces: the law as written, the standards of rational behavior of the jury, the logical testing of your statements by the judge, and the subjective testing of your truthfulness by the jury. And in case you don’t know this, most cases are decided by the test of truthfulness, which is why american courts are so useful for commerce. The first sin of american law is failure of informational reciprocity. Failure and error are forgivable. Violation of reciprocity is not. HIERARCHY OF CERTAINTY … FALSE, that which does not survive tests of falsification. … … TRUE, that which survives all tests of falsification … … … PROVEN, that which survives tests of possibility. … … … … UNDECIDABLE that which cannot be decided. THE TRUTH TABLE OF CERTAINTY F:False, T:True, P:Provable, U:Undecidable …..F…..T…..P…..U F…F…..F…..F…..U T…F….*T*…P…..U P…F…..P…..P…..U U..F…..U….U…..U
-
Natural Law, and the Grammar of Operational Language
NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM (propertarianism core)(important) Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like english requires more planning than other languages do already. For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually. EXPLANATION Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error. Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs. So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns. THE OPERATIONALIST GRAMMAR actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result, actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result “The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false). In propertarianism (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR. FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law. {terms and definitions } -We … (who) -Whereas we have observed … (definition of state ) -Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state) -We propose …. (series of actions to change state) and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.) -Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws) and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed), -And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ). -Signed …. -Juried …. …. -Adjudicated. …. …. …. -Recorded. This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of anglo saxons that Jefferson attempted to formalize in the US constitution. Our chief function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the american experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the english experience, and thousands of years of the various germanic, latin, greek, and aryan european traditions. We must correct: The errors of the enlightenment visions of man, the corruption of that document of natural law in the post civil war period by the aggression of the north against the south, and the introduction into that document of amendments that violate natural law. The attempt to defeat meritocratic aristocracy by the invention of a pseudoscientific religion by the cosmopolitan Jews: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School. The industrialization of deception under mass media, the alliance of finance, commerce, media, academy, and state, to exploit the middle and working classes to pay for the votes of the underclasses, the use of mass immigration of underclasses once their pseudoscientific, pseudorational, and pseudo-moral attempts at overthrow of the civlization had failed. And the intentional undermining of our constitution of natural law, our education systems, our history and our culture, our civic society, our family as the central object of policy, and our ancient aesthetics, and even our most sacred universal requirement for truthful speech regardless of the consequences. And the extraction of wealth from our people by the sale of shares in the economy at interest in order to generate consumption, rather than direct distribution of shares to individual citizens and forcing industry, finance, and state to compete for them – the virtual enslavement of our people. And lastly, the genocide that has been conducted against the white race in order to exterminate the aristocratic civilization by the middle eastern peoples despite having dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, hunger, disease, and poverty. All of this is possible by amending and thereby restoring this constitution, and restoring and preserving the ancient rights of anglo saxons and their ancestors: Sovereignty. The Cult of Non Submission. WE WERE FORGED BY TRUTH By the first principle of sovereignty, we were forced to discover and use deflationary truth in everything we have done for thousands of years. We can restore our people by the simple act of restoring truth, non-parasitism, and duty: every man a sheriff, and warrior. This is terribly easy to do. People do not have to believe a law that enforces reciprocity. They need only pursue their own interests and use that law to create reciprocity. And the central problem of our age is the destruction of our families by financial parasitism, international parasitism, and the industrialization of deceit. APOLOGIES I am sorry that this didn’t occur to me earlier. I didn’t realize how helpful it was to state what I considered to be obvious. If you write in the above grammar without the verb to be, you can construct most arguments. Curt Doolittle -
Natural Law, and the Grammar of Operational Language
NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM (propertarianism core)(important) Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like english requires more planning than other languages do already. For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually. EXPLANATION Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error. Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs. So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns. THE OPERATIONALIST GRAMMAR actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result, actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result “The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false). In propertarianism (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR. FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law. {terms and definitions } -We … (who) -Whereas we have observed … (definition of state ) -Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state) -We propose …. (series of actions to change state) and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.) -Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws) and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed), -And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ). -Signed …. -Juried …. …. -Adjudicated. …. …. …. -Recorded. This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of anglo saxons that Jefferson attempted to formalize in the US constitution. Our chief function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the american experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the english experience, and thousands of years of the various germanic, latin, greek, and aryan european traditions. We must correct: The errors of the enlightenment visions of man, the corruption of that document of natural law in the post civil war period by the aggression of the north against the south, and the introduction into that document of amendments that violate natural law. The attempt to defeat meritocratic aristocracy by the invention of a pseudoscientific religion by the cosmopolitan Jews: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School. The industrialization of deception under mass media, the alliance of finance, commerce, media, academy, and state, to exploit the middle and working classes to pay for the votes of the underclasses, the use of mass immigration of underclasses once their pseudoscientific, pseudorational, and pseudo-moral attempts at overthrow of the civlization had failed. And the intentional undermining of our constitution of natural law, our education systems, our history and our culture, our civic society, our family as the central object of policy, and our ancient aesthetics, and even our most sacred universal requirement for truthful speech regardless of the consequences. And the extraction of wealth from our people by the sale of shares in the economy at interest in order to generate consumption, rather than direct distribution of shares to individual citizens and forcing industry, finance, and state to compete for them – the virtual enslavement of our people. And lastly, the genocide that has been conducted against the white race in order to exterminate the aristocratic civilization by the middle eastern peoples despite having dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, hunger, disease, and poverty. All of this is possible by amending and thereby restoring this constitution, and restoring and preserving the ancient rights of anglo saxons and their ancestors: Sovereignty. The Cult of Non Submission. WE WERE FORGED BY TRUTH By the first principle of sovereignty, we were forced to discover and use deflationary truth in everything we have done for thousands of years. We can restore our people by the simple act of restoring truth, non-parasitism, and duty: every man a sheriff, and warrior. This is terribly easy to do. People do not have to believe a law that enforces reciprocity. They need only pursue their own interests and use that law to create reciprocity. And the central problem of our age is the destruction of our families by financial parasitism, international parasitism, and the industrialization of deceit. APOLOGIES I am sorry that this didn’t occur to me earlier. I didn’t realize how helpful it was to state what I considered to be obvious. If you write in the above grammar without the verb to be, you can construct most arguments. Curt Doolittle -
Where does a Newbie Start?
—” If I were a total newb what book/books should I start with?”—Ziggy Propertarianism (Natural Law) is a painfully precise language for the amoral comparison between the various categories, values, methods of ‘knowing’, methods of communicating, and means of decidability social orders, as well as making inferior superior, moral and immoral, and true and false decisions within and across them. While the grammar of Natural Law is demanding, and the number of principles you need to understand not much more difficult than say, geometry, it is much easier to learn Natural Law (Propertarianism) if you understand the context that we’re coming from. So, if you asked me how to learn any subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means. You do not need to know the history of warfare, of the common law, of the differences in truth content between argumentative and communicative structures, or the depths of epistemology. You need to know a little about mankind, and then a very little about western civlization’s “luck of the draw”: Sovereignty is possible under certain geographic conditions: when no resource can be centralized and exploited for the purpose of concentrating the proceeds of production in a minor class, and where a self- funded militia is necessary for the defense of territory. So to get you started, I’ll leave you with that one idea, and these four books. After that see the Reading List at the top of the website for more. And honestly, the best way to learn is to follow me. I basically teach class every day, in a vast one-room schoolhouse with students of all grades: Facebook on the internet. THE INDIVIDUAL Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind THE COMMUNITY Francis Fukuyama: Trust
THE NATION Garett Jones: Hive Mind: How Your Nations IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own MANKIND Peter Turchin: Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth -
Where does a Newbie Start?
—” If I were a total newb what book/books should I start with?”—Ziggy Propertarianism (Natural Law) is a painfully precise language for the amoral comparison between the various categories, values, methods of ‘knowing’, methods of communicating, and means of decidability social orders, as well as making inferior superior, moral and immoral, and true and false decisions within and across them. While the grammar of Natural Law is demanding, and the number of principles you need to understand not much more difficult than say, geometry, it is much easier to learn Natural Law (Propertarianism) if you understand the context that we’re coming from. So, if you asked me how to learn any subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means. You do not need to know the history of warfare, of the common law, of the differences in truth content between argumentative and communicative structures, or the depths of epistemology. You need to know a little about mankind, and then a very little about western civlization’s “luck of the draw”: Sovereignty is possible under certain geographic conditions: when no resource can be centralized and exploited for the purpose of concentrating the proceeds of production in a minor class, and where a self- funded militia is necessary for the defense of territory. So to get you started, I’ll leave you with that one idea, and these four books. After that see the Reading List at the top of the website for more. And honestly, the best way to learn is to follow me. I basically teach class every day, in a vast one-room schoolhouse with students of all grades: Facebook on the internet. THE INDIVIDUAL Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind THE COMMUNITY Francis Fukuyama: Trust
THE NATION Garett Jones: Hive Mind: How Your Nations IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own MANKIND Peter Turchin: Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth -
The Definition and Use of ‘-ISMs’
IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM” What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”? ism ˈizəm/ noun informal
“a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain of preferences: typically a political ideology, philosophy, institutional framework, economic model, or an artistic movement. isms separate the categories that are defined by the constant relations of the physical world from the inconstant categories of the preferential world that we call the sciences. A science does not account for preferences in inputs or outputs, but an ‘ism, as a means of decidability between preferences must.” So one must know the ism’s to debate them. To know the isms requires one know the categories, values, methods of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. So in systems of preferences, ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species. When referring to ‘isms’ we can use other ‘isms’ to reinterpret them – using a different set of categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. if we are confused by one another’s arguments we can clarify our arguments by increasing the precision of our arguments, by referring directly to categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. When one criticizes the use of ism’s one is criticizing a taxonomic reference to a set of particulars: categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability, one does little more than (a) demonstrate one’s ignorance of the topic, (b) demonstrate one’s arrogance from a position of ignorance, (c) attempt to steal from others by demanding that they pay the cost of educating you, or tolerate the existence of your theft, and the consequences it might have if your attempted theft is interpreted by others as an inability to construct a counter argument. In other words, arguments from ignorance are a form of blackmail. And those who conduct blackmail are those we wish to punish for their crimes. The ethical, moral, and non-criminal means of requesting information is this: “I don’t understand, would you mind answering this question: what do you mean when you say….” To which the other will respond either with reciprocal ethical and moral and non-criminal means, by saying “Ok.(attempted clarification)”, or some variation on “I can’t afford to make that investment now, but here is where you may look do it yourself”, or “I just don’t have the time or inclination to invest in that question at the moment”. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine -
The Definition and Use of ‘-ISMs’
IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM” What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”? ism ˈizəm/ noun informal
“a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain of preferences: typically a political ideology, philosophy, institutional framework, economic model, or an artistic movement. isms separate the categories that are defined by the constant relations of the physical world from the inconstant categories of the preferential world that we call the sciences. A science does not account for preferences in inputs or outputs, but an ‘ism, as a means of decidability between preferences must.” So one must know the ism’s to debate them. To know the isms requires one know the categories, values, methods of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. So in systems of preferences, ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species. When referring to ‘isms’ we can use other ‘isms’ to reinterpret them – using a different set of categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. if we are confused by one another’s arguments we can clarify our arguments by increasing the precision of our arguments, by referring directly to categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability. When one criticizes the use of ism’s one is criticizing a taxonomic reference to a set of particulars: categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability, one does little more than (a) demonstrate one’s ignorance of the topic, (b) demonstrate one’s arrogance from a position of ignorance, (c) attempt to steal from others by demanding that they pay the cost of educating you, or tolerate the existence of your theft, and the consequences it might have if your attempted theft is interpreted by others as an inability to construct a counter argument. In other words, arguments from ignorance are a form of blackmail. And those who conduct blackmail are those we wish to punish for their crimes. The ethical, moral, and non-criminal means of requesting information is this: “I don’t understand, would you mind answering this question: what do you mean when you say….” To which the other will respond either with reciprocal ethical and moral and non-criminal means, by saying “Ok.(attempted clarification)”, or some variation on “I can’t afford to make that investment now, but here is where you may look do it yourself”, or “I just don’t have the time or inclination to invest in that question at the moment”. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine -
IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM” What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”? is
IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM”
What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”?
ism
ˈizəm/
noun informal
“a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain of preferences: typically a political ideology, philosophy, institutional framework, economic model, or an artistic movement. isms separate the categories that are defined by the constant relations of the physical world from the inconstant categories of the preferential world that we call the sciences. A science does not account for preferences in inputs or outputs, but an ‘ism, as a means of decidability between preferences must.”
So one must know the ism’s to debate them. To know the isms requires one know the categories, values, methods of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. So in systems of preferences, ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species.
When referring to ‘isms’ we can use other ‘isms’ to reinterpret them – using a different set of categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability.
if we are confused by one another’s arguments we can clarify our arguments by increasing the precision of our arguments, by referring directly to categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability.
When one criticizes the use of ism’s one is criticizing a taxonomic reference to a set of particulars: categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability, one does little more than (a) demonstrate one’s ignorance of the topic, (b) demonstrate one’s arrogance from a position of ignorance, (c) attempt to steal from others by demanding that they pay the cost of educating you, or tolerate the existence of your theft, and the consequences it might have if your attempted theft is interpreted by others as an inability to construct a counter argument. In other words, arguments from ignorance are a form of blackmail. And those who conduct blackmail are those we wish to punish for their crimes.
The ethical, moral, and non-criminal means of requesting information is this: “I don’t understand, would you mind answering this question: what do you mean when you say….”
To which the other will respond either with reciprocal ethical and moral and non-criminal means, by saying “Ok.(attempted clarification)”, or some variation on “I can’t afford to make that investment now, but here is where you may look do it yourself”, or “I just don’t have the time or inclination to invest in that question at the moment”.
Curt Doolittle
The Cult of Non Submission
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 10:53:00 UTC
-
NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM (propertarianism core)(important)
NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM
(propertarianism core)(important)
Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like english requires more planning than other languages do already.
For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually.
EXPLANATION
Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error.
Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs.
So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns.
THE OPERATIONALIST GRAMMAR
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result,
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result
“The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false)”
(Reminds me of Yoda-speak, or Latin… lol)
In propertarianism (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR.
FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW
If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law.
{terms and definitions }
-We … (who)
-Whereas we have observed … (definition of state )
-Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state)
-We propose …. (series of actions to change state)
and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.)
-Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws)
and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed),
-And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ).
-Signed
…. -Juried
…. …. -Adjudicated.
…. …. …. -Recorded.
This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of anglo saxons that Jefferson attempted to formalize in the US constitution.
Our chief function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the american experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the english experience, and thousands of years of the various germanic, latin, greek, and aryan european traditions.
We must correct:
The errors of the enlightenment visions of man, the corruption of that document of natural law in the post civil war period by the aggression of the north against the south, and the introduction into that document of amendments that violate natural law. The attempt to defeat meritocratic aristocracy by the invention of a pseudoscientific religion by the cosmopolitan Jews: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School. The industrialization of deception under mass media, the alliance of finance, commerce, media, academy, and state, to exploit the middle and working classes to pay for the votes of the underclasses, the use of mass immigration of underclasses once their pseudoscientific, pseudorational, and pseudo-moral attempts at overthrow of the civlization had failed. And the intentional undermining of our constitution of natural law, our education systems, our history and our culture, our civic society, our family as the central object of policy, and our ancient aesthetics, and even our most sacred universal requirement for truthful speech regardless of the consequences. And the extraction of wealth from our people by the sale of shares in the economy at interest in order to generate consumption, rather than direct distribution of shares to individual citizens and forcing industry, finance, and state to compete for them – the virtual enslavement of our people. And lastly, the genocide that has been conducted against the white race in order to exterminate the aristocratic civilization by the middle eastern peoples despite having dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, hunger, disease, and poverty.
All of this is possible by amending and thereby restoring this constitution, and restoring and preserving the ancient rights of anglo saxons and tehir ancestors: Sovereignty. The Cult of Non Submission.
WE WERE FORGED BY TRUTH
By the first principle of sovereignty, we were forced to discover and use deflationary truth in everything we have done for thousands of years.
We can restore our people by the simple act of restoring truth, non-parasitism, and duty: every man a sheriff, and warrior.
This is terribly easy todo. People do not have to believe a law that enforces reciprocity. They need only pursue their own interests and use that law to create reciprocity.
And the central problem of our age is the destruction of our families by financial parasitism, international parasitism, and the industrialization of deceit.
APOLOGIES
I am sorry that this didn’t occur to me earlier. I didn’t realize how helpful it was to state what I considered to be obvious. If you write in the above grammar without the verb to be, you can construct most arguments.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 13:27:00 UTC