Theme: Grammar

” I promise the subject exists as the experience of… “ The cat is black = “I promise if you look at the cat it will appear to reflect the color black to you, or anyone else that observes it.” WHY DO I CARE? WHY DO YOU CARE? If you cannot make your argument without the word ‘is’ then you are almost surely engaging in fallacy. Almost every criticism I receive is constructed out of conveniently self-deceptive confirmation bias using justificationary phrasings. IS (EXISTS) REFERS TO: 1) Exists (identity) 3) Exists in this location or time (Space and Time) 2) Exists with this or these properties (Properties) 4) Exists with the properties of this class. (Categories) We use the verb to-be for the same reason we give names to complex processes, and the same reason mathematicians call functions ‘numbers’: because it’s a verbal convenience that reduces our effort in organizing spoken words. ie:shortcuts. MISUSE We tend to misuse the verb ‘is’ in order 1) use the ‘verbal simplification’ of ‘is’ to obscure our lack of understanding of the subject matter – which if stated operationally would demonstrate our incompetence with the subject. 2) to equate that which is not equal in order to justify a fallacy. 3) conflate experience, action, and existence – which are three points of view. We do not conflate first, second and third person narration, so why would we conflate experience, action, and existence? We do so for a number of reasons not the least of which is to attribute to experiences the argumentative weight of actions or existence. In other words, to lie that an experience is a cost. (Although to women and beta males, untrained in mental discipline this solipsism seems to be a common defect they adhere to in order to preserve their illusions – almost always status related.) 4) All of the above: to obscure our ignorance, to equate as equal that which is not, and to conflate experience action and existence in order to attribute cost to the experience of emotions. THE DISCIPLINE OF GRAMMAR IS BEHIND THE TIMES The very reference to ‘joining’ or ‘the copula’ is archaic. All human language consists of the construction of sets of analogies to experience by the transfer of properties by analogies. ***The verb to be functions as a promise of perceivable properties*** Sure, grammar is helpful for teachers of the young that wish to explain word order, and usage, but word order and usage are different from meaning. We would be far better off in teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric by reducing our study of language to it’s constituent parts of communication: analogies to experience through the use of category(set) and property. It may be helpful teach the young grammatical usage by repetition(as a craft), but when we come to logic and rhetoric (adult conversation), and in particular argument (the pursuit of truth) then we can also teach grammar as the branch of logic that it is: sets and properties. Meaning that colloquial, craftsmanly, and logical language evolve with our abilities just as ethics evolve from imitative, to virtuous, to rules, to outcomes. Just as mathematics evolves from arithmetic, to accounting, algebra, to geometry and trigonometry, to calculus, to statistics. Just as science evolves from that which is observable(human scale), that which exists up to the limits of human scale(Newtonian), to that which exists beyond human scale (relativity), to that which exists at super and sub scales (the missing theory of everything). So try to make your argument without the word ‘is’. Look at the paragraphs above and observe how infrequently I use it, and that those few times I do, I use it as reference to existential properties. But then, it is not those of us who wish to advance false ideas that wish to study this technique, but those of us who wish to police the commons against the multitude of pollutions created by the wishful thinking and outright deceit of well meaning fools, and ill meaning craftsmen. (chapter inclusion quality) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

” I promise the subject exists as the experience of… “ The cat is black = “I promise if you look at the cat it will appear to reflect the color black to you, or anyone else that observes it.” WHY DO I CARE? WHY DO YOU CARE? If you cannot make your argument without the word ‘is’ then you are almost surely engaging in fallacy. Almost every criticism I receive is constructed out of conveniently self-deceptive confirmation bias using justificationary phrasings. IS (EXISTS) REFERS TO: 1) Exists (identity) 3) Exists in this location or time (Space and Time) 2) Exists with this or these properties (Properties) 4) Exists with the properties of this class. (Categories) We use the verb to-be for the same reason we give names to complex processes, and the same reason mathematicians call functions ‘numbers’: because it’s a verbal convenience that reduces our effort in organizing spoken words. ie:shortcuts. MISUSE We tend to misuse the verb ‘is’ in order 1) use the ‘verbal simplification’ of ‘is’ to obscure our lack of understanding of the subject matter – which if stated operationally would demonstrate our incompetence with the subject. 2) to equate that which is not equal in order to justify a fallacy. 3) conflate experience, action, and existence – which are three points of view. We do not conflate first, second and third person narration, so why would we conflate experience, action, and existence? We do so for a number of reasons not the least of which is to attribute to experiences the argumentative weight of actions or existence. In other words, to lie that an experience is a cost. (Although to women and beta males, untrained in mental discipline this solipsism seems to be a common defect they adhere to in order to preserve their illusions – almost always status related.) 4) All of the above: to obscure our ignorance, to equate as equal that which is not, and to conflate experience action and existence in order to attribute cost to the experience of emotions. THE DISCIPLINE OF GRAMMAR IS BEHIND THE TIMES The very reference to ‘joining’ or ‘the copula’ is archaic. All human language consists of the construction of sets of analogies to experience by the transfer of properties by analogies. ***The verb to be functions as a promise of perceivable properties*** Sure, grammar is helpful for teachers of the young that wish to explain word order, and usage, but word order and usage are different from meaning. We would be far better off in teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric by reducing our study of language to it’s constituent parts of communication: analogies to experience through the use of category(set) and property. It may be helpful teach the young grammatical usage by repetition(as a craft), but when we come to logic and rhetoric (adult conversation), and in particular argument (the pursuit of truth) then we can also teach grammar as the branch of logic that it is: sets and properties. Meaning that colloquial, craftsmanly, and logical language evolve with our abilities just as ethics evolve from imitative, to virtuous, to rules, to outcomes. Just as mathematics evolves from arithmetic, to accounting, algebra, to geometry and trigonometry, to calculus, to statistics. Just as science evolves from that which is observable(human scale), that which exists up to the limits of human scale(Newtonian), to that which exists beyond human scale (relativity), to that which exists at super and sub scales (the missing theory of everything). So try to make your argument without the word ‘is’. Look at the paragraphs above and observe how infrequently I use it, and that those few times I do, I use it as reference to existential properties. But then, it is not those of us who wish to advance false ideas that wish to study this technique, but those of us who wish to police the commons against the multitude of pollutions created by the wishful thinking and outright deceit of well meaning fools, and ill meaning craftsmen. (chapter inclusion quality) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine