Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • CONSTANT RELATIONS: CLASS VS CATEGORY —“One is the notion of category that add

    CONSTANT RELATIONS: CLASS VS CATEGORY

    —“One is the notion of category that addresses the building blocks of thought – which are the categories that are necessary for thinking, knowing, deciding, etc.”—

    I don’t know what building blocks of thought are.

    But as far as I know the process of precognitive, as well as cognitive categorization refers to identifying a set of constant relations. And as far as I know that’s all that can be said about them. This is the function of our physical layers of neurons: reducing sets of constant relations to increasing generalizations that increase the potential for associations, culminating the potential for intertemporal associations.

    Again. As far as i know, this is all that can be or need be said. we do not need the word ‘category’, which in original translation means something on the order of ‘accusation’ or ‘assertion’, or ‘name’:

    category (n.)

    1580s, from Middle French catégorie, from Late Latin categoria, from Greek kategoria “accusation, prediction, category,” verbal noun from kategorein “to speak against; to accuse, assert, predicate,” from kata “down to” (or perhaps “against;” see cata-) + agoreuein “to harangue, to declaim (in the assembly),” from agora “public assembly” (see agora).

    Original sense of “accuse” weakened to “assert, name” by the time Aristotle applied kategoria to his 10 classes of things that can be named.

    —“category should be used by no-one who is not prepared to state (1) that he does not mean class, & (2) that he knows the difference between the two”—- [Fowler]

    So I should probably be more cautious when I use the term, since class(invariant) is at least descriptive, and the relationship between class(invariant) and category (utilitarian or ‘discretionary’? ) is easier to understand, even if ‘set of constant relations’ is existential. So we can express constant relations as either a Class or a Category. I tend to think (and I should probably work on clarifying this a bit), but I use class for existential categories (science), and category for utilitarian (imagining, reasoning).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-28 18:24:00 UTC

  • A smart friend just reminded me how easy it is for smart folks to identify disti

    A smart friend just reminded me how easy it is for smart folks to identify distinctions without a difference.

    A question must propose a context.

    Those distinctions outside of the context are not differences.

    To conflate them is to impose your internal method of categorization upon the question rather than aswer the question with the properties that its decidabilty requires.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 15:43:00 UTC

  • THE FUNCTION OF A PHILOSOPHER The function of a philosopher is to identify and c

    THE FUNCTION OF A PHILOSOPHER

    The function of a philosopher is to identify and construct general rules of greater precision than the generation of philosophers that came before him – if he is lucky. Otherwise, if that previous generation was not less precise, but just wrong, then he has either to start from the generation before them, and so on, and so on, until some generation is no so much wrong, as imprecise. In our case it appears one has to go back quite a few. ‘Cause, at least, a whole lotta people got it a lot more wrong than right since the dawn of the scientific enlightenment. And if not for Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Spencer, Durkheim, Menger, Hayek, Nietzsche, the pre-raphelites and the romanticists, we’d have to rewind all the way back to Locke, Smith, Hume, and Jefferson. I mean. For the past few centuries, we’ve produced so called ‘philosophers’ by the box-car load. And I’m not sure they differ all that much from romance novelists, comic books, and slapstick playwrights. The pretense of wit – particularly with language – is a measure of the population willing to consume it. Popularity is not a measure of truth but of ignorance. Truth is complicated. Otherwise we wouldn’t need the few philosophers and scientists that succeed.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 15:39:00 UTC

  • “The upholding of parasitic norms must always rely upon the manipulative use of

    —“The upholding of parasitic norms must always rely upon the manipulative use of language.”— Rob Brown

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-26 11:57:00 UTC

  • Can you think without that experience we call categories?

    Can you think without that experience we call categories?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-26 07:20:00 UTC

  • YES, YOU CAN STATE A FALSE QUESTION. A question itself can be based upon false p

    YES, YOU CAN STATE A FALSE QUESTION.

    A question itself can be based upon false premises. So yes, a question can posit a falsehood, just as a statement can posit a falsehood.

    In fact, asking false questions is a conveniently deceptive means of stating falsehoods under the pretext of innocence. (The media does this all the time now – positing opinions, and statements, and arguments as questions as a means of escaping accountabiilty for their words: propagandizing).

    Whenever someone asks a question, first restate it as an assertion (statement), then simply test whether it is true or false. This will identify people who are engaged in deceptions.

    —“How do we prove everything is all just in our minds, or isn’t?”—

    This question is based upon a falsehood: the conflation of logical proof of internal consistency, with the falsification of alternatives leaving a theory that survives as a truth candidate.

    SPECTRUM:

    1) Associable: it is possible by free association to identify a pattern of similarity between two ideas.

    2) Reasonable: One constructs a route, or way, (wayfinding) within that system we call ‘reasonable’ to determine if an idea is reasonably conceivable without succumbing to ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, and framing, or overloading, platonism, supernaturalism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, or outright deceit.

    3) Rational: non contradictory. One tests a statement for non-contradiction.

    4) Proof: Logical Proof: One constructs a proof of internal consistency within an axiomatic system.

    5) Fact: Observable Fact: One constructs a theory of observation, in an attempt to posit a fact.

    6) Theory: Theoretical Truth: One constructs a theory of causality by external correspondence, and attempts to testify (promise, or speak) truthfully when describing it, by providing due diligence against its possible falsehoods.

    7) Law; A theoretical truth that has survived testing in the market for ideas within which the proposition is defined.

    9) Truth: ultimately most parsimonious description humanly possible given the limits specified in the conditions. (We do not know the first principles of the universe so we cannot yet state truths with any degree of reliability)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 12:37:00 UTC

  • “Hello Curt. Do you know the book Meta-Philosophy : Philosophy from a philosophi

    —“Hello Curt. Do you know the book Meta-Philosophy : Philosophy from a philosophical perspective?”— Nate

    I tend to use scientific language to make similar statements. For example, I would say that philosophy consists in the use of reason to provide us with a means decidability.

    But that the means of decidability requires a premise, and that premise is ‘an outcome’ or outputs. So given any set of inputs how can we produce a given set of outputs? And whereas in the physical world we are limited by the resources, methods of transformation, and time available. But our methods of transformation are either true or false. In the world of preferences, we are instead most limited in our ability to convince others to prefer what we choose to prefer. And unfortunately, nearly unlimited in the methods by which we can use deception to obtain their agreement upon such a preference.

    Yet, if we use reason to provide us decidability in truthful testimony proper, we can provide decidability across domains, whether they be matters of the physical, personal, and social. Or whether they be matters of limits, preferences or truths.

    I can’t say enough that I don’t take philosophy seriously, and that I don’t read it at all. I actually have come to the conclusion that philosophy as practiced is as harmful as theology.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 10:53:00 UTC

  • is there any way of keeping propertarian discourse limited to the language of la

    is there any way of keeping propertarian discourse limited to the language of law and entirely divorced from philosophy theology and morality, or will it degenerate into ‘bad old habits’?

    hmmm……..

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-19 19:10:00 UTC

  • AVOIDANCE OF EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR AS COGNITIVE SOLIPSISM: INABILITY TO DISTINGUIS

    AVOIDANCE OF EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR AS COGNITIVE SOLIPSISM: INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH EXPERIENCE FROM EXISTENCE.

    The deceit is in failing to use EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR, the same way we use gender-grammar, or temporal grammar, or locational grammar.

    Not sure why it’s so hard for people to grasp this concept.

    Not quite sure why people want to rely on the pretense of ‘god mode’ to make their statements.

    or rather, I think it is a form of cognitive solipsism: inability to separate the self from existence.

    Actually, that’s what I”m going to call it: cognitive solipsism.

    Just as so many women cannot distinquish between experience and consequence, some people cannot distinquish between experience and existence.

    cognitive solipsism.

    Not sure if it’s a developmental disorder, or a failure of maturity, or an uneven evolutionary distribution of intellectual capacity… hmmm…..

    (edit: added)

    Existential Grammar is only important once an individual makes claims to truth because of a premise or conclusion. Now, I’might argue that it’s necessary to ensure you’re not making a mistake, but then, meaning for the purpose of ideation and testimony for the purpose of warrantying due diligence prior to making a truth claim are different things. So I would hope that people would grasp that almost all philosophical arguments I run across are SOPHOMORIC because of nothing more than trickery accomplished by conflation by using the verb to-be to make existential and deducible claims, rather than simply using existential grammar and making the fraudulent claim to existential ‘authority’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 13:45:00 UTC

  • Yes. And they are working on a similar issue of expression the consequences of c

    Yes. And they are working on a similar issue of expression the consequences of constant relations as superior to set operations (which they, and I ) clearly agree are problematic (and in my opinion, one of the reasons for 20th c pseudoscience, and the failure of 20thc philosophy to contribute anything meaningful.)

    My view goes something like this (and I don’t know if its been touched on in math before):

    Properties > Operations > “Categories”(incl math cat) > Sets (sets of categories) > (repeat iteratively vs decompose recursively).

    This is a language of constant mathematical relations that in my opinion is a reflection of verbal (theoretical) semi-constant relations expressed by the universal epistemelogical process:

    Free association > pattern > wayfinding > hypothesis > theory > Law (repeat iteratively vs decompose recursively).

    In other words mathematics functions as a test of constant relations, and that is the best that we can do until we discover the underlying operations.

    Moreover, think of it like this: We evolved to think at human scale, and just as we use mathematics to describe relations about which we do not know the causal operations, to explore the GRANULAR, we also can engage in combinatorial ‘categories’ at higher and higher levels of abstraction in order to imagine (envision) greater and greater patterns. So that between math for reduction, and language for expansion, we are starting from the conceptual middle (human scale) and working toward the finite (descriptive) and the infinite (imaginary) using the tools of higher precisino (math, operations) and the tools of opportunity generation (langauge, free assocaiaion).

    By the processs of imaginatino and reduction we attempt to construct that which is OPERATIONALLY POSSIBLE at HUMAN SCALE.

    I think this is the most profound way that I know how to unify the range of human thought into a single explanatory narrative.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-16 10:41:00 UTC