[F]ormal languages are subsets of our full language. They are platonic (imaginary and symbolic) by definition and intent. Operational language is not platonic, but extant and demonstrated in real time and space, and can be used to describe actions in time and space, and if constrained to the description of actions in time and space, are open to observation, and confirmation, and falsification. This is why science requires operational language. This is why ethics MUST require operational language. Otherwise deception, self deception and error are obscured by the fungibility of language. Tarski, Alfred, “The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics”, in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4 (1944). Tarski, Alfred. “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages”, in Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Clarendon Press, 1956.
Theme: Grammar
-
On My Use Of Terms
[I] don’t like to just ‘point’ to my glossary entries every time I use some term. I’d rather defend each term in context – it’s like physical fitness. I get better at my arguments with every ‘set of reps’. In a perfect world, every time a use a term, FB would link to it in my glossary. (Even on my web site I have to do it manually). But my Glossary is 50K words of definitions. I started it in 2009. I don’t really have to add to it all that often any longer. I periodically take a given letter (A-Z) and update it. But you know, it’s turned out to be pretty stable. Some terms are marked “undone” so that I go back and finish them. Some could use some clarification. My original intention was to emphasize those terms that I have modified or which I’ve created. But many many terms have been modified to abandon enlightenment errors and introduce propertarian corrections to those terms. http://www.propertarianism.com/glossary/
-
On My Use Of Terms
[I] don’t like to just ‘point’ to my glossary entries every time I use some term. I’d rather defend each term in context – it’s like physical fitness. I get better at my arguments with every ‘set of reps’. In a perfect world, every time a use a term, FB would link to it in my glossary. (Even on my web site I have to do it manually). But my Glossary is 50K words of definitions. I started it in 2009. I don’t really have to add to it all that often any longer. I periodically take a given letter (A-Z) and update it. But you know, it’s turned out to be pretty stable. Some terms are marked “undone” so that I go back and finish them. Some could use some clarification. My original intention was to emphasize those terms that I have modified or which I’ve created. But many many terms have been modified to abandon enlightenment errors and introduce propertarian corrections to those terms. http://www.propertarianism.com/glossary/
-
Unfortunately, Pseudoscientific Language Is Really Useful.
[T]he question is whether “truth” in the context of Critical Rationalism is an analogy or not. I posit that it’s analogistic language just like nearly all uses of ‘truth’. The only action that can exist is attestation. And nothing can be said to be ‘true’ independent of someone’s cognition. I’m trying to eliminate pseudoscientific language. Because pseudoscientific language is unethical and immoral. It may be efficient. It may be useful. It may even in some cases be conceptually necessary. All disciplines rely upon such contrivances for the sake of brevity and ease. These contrivances my be utilitarian, but that is different from saying that they are ‘true’.
-
Unfortunately, Pseudoscientific Language Is Really Useful.
[T]he question is whether “truth” in the context of Critical Rationalism is an analogy or not. I posit that it’s analogistic language just like nearly all uses of ‘truth’. The only action that can exist is attestation. And nothing can be said to be ‘true’ independent of someone’s cognition. I’m trying to eliminate pseudoscientific language. Because pseudoscientific language is unethical and immoral. It may be efficient. It may be useful. It may even in some cases be conceptually necessary. All disciplines rely upon such contrivances for the sake of brevity and ease. These contrivances my be utilitarian, but that is different from saying that they are ‘true’.
-
On English As The Language Of Ethics
(cross posted for archival purposes) [E]nglish is a very precise and technical language. Probably the most empirically framed language we have. As such it’s burdensome. The verb “to-be” problem (the problem of ‘is’, and solved with E’) evolved and exists largely as an operational simplifier in an already burdensome language. Secondly it’s an emotionally unloaded language – very german. And so we have to invent all sorts of devices to add emotion to an emotionally unloaded language. We used to do that with artistry – riddle, poetry, rhyme, insinuation, innuendo, and allegory. I think that with the rise of mass education, marketing, military and technical language, as well as cultural diversity those more artistic means of adding emotional content have been replaced by simplistic exaggeration and euphemism as you’ve mentioned above. [N]ow, assuming that we want to eliminate mysticism, platonism, postmodernism, obscurantism, and various forms of loading and framing, so that we can construct a scientific language of ethics, morality, law and politics (a logic of cooperation), in which it is impossible to obscure involuntary transfers (thefts); and assuming that the performative theory of truth is correct and that it requires an individual to possess not only knowledge of use, but knowledge of construction; and assuming that with such knowledge one can, and must, and assuming that the only means by which we can test both transparency of transfers and and knowledge of construction, and therefore the only means of speaking honestly is with E’ in operational language; then the burden on the speaker is quite high. Extraordinarily so. This set of ethical and moral constraints upon language of produces a few very interesting consequences: (a) Because of that high burden, similar to the burden of memorization placed on ‘wise men’ in oral tradition societies, it severely limits the number of people who can participate in public discourse – effectively recreating our druidic ancestors. (b) it makes it possible for anyone to prosecute obscurantists of all kinds for conspiracy to commit fraud, under the common law. Public intellectuals, attempted statists, lawyers, judges, and the common folk included. Actually, I don’t think it’s possible to state a logic of ethical, moral, legal, and political argument in any language OTHER than English or German – and I’m not sure about German. (I only studied it for one year and I can’t speak it at all. I just understand its structure.) Cheers Curt
COMMENTS Jeannine DiPerna, Michael Pattinson and Eric Field like this. Curt Doolittle (hat tip to Paul Bakhmut)
-
On English As The Language Of Ethics
(cross posted for archival purposes) [E]nglish is a very precise and technical language. Probably the most empirically framed language we have. As such it’s burdensome. The verb “to-be” problem (the problem of ‘is’, and solved with E’) evolved and exists largely as an operational simplifier in an already burdensome language. Secondly it’s an emotionally unloaded language – very german. And so we have to invent all sorts of devices to add emotion to an emotionally unloaded language. We used to do that with artistry – riddle, poetry, rhyme, insinuation, innuendo, and allegory. I think that with the rise of mass education, marketing, military and technical language, as well as cultural diversity those more artistic means of adding emotional content have been replaced by simplistic exaggeration and euphemism as you’ve mentioned above. [N]ow, assuming that we want to eliminate mysticism, platonism, postmodernism, obscurantism, and various forms of loading and framing, so that we can construct a scientific language of ethics, morality, law and politics (a logic of cooperation), in which it is impossible to obscure involuntary transfers (thefts); and assuming that the performative theory of truth is correct and that it requires an individual to possess not only knowledge of use, but knowledge of construction; and assuming that with such knowledge one can, and must, and assuming that the only means by which we can test both transparency of transfers and and knowledge of construction, and therefore the only means of speaking honestly is with E’ in operational language; then the burden on the speaker is quite high. Extraordinarily so. This set of ethical and moral constraints upon language of produces a few very interesting consequences: (a) Because of that high burden, similar to the burden of memorization placed on ‘wise men’ in oral tradition societies, it severely limits the number of people who can participate in public discourse – effectively recreating our druidic ancestors. (b) it makes it possible for anyone to prosecute obscurantists of all kinds for conspiracy to commit fraud, under the common law. Public intellectuals, attempted statists, lawyers, judges, and the common folk included. Actually, I don’t think it’s possible to state a logic of ethical, moral, legal, and political argument in any language OTHER than English or German – and I’m not sure about German. (I only studied it for one year and I can’t speak it at all. I just understand its structure.) Cheers Curt
COMMENTS Jeannine DiPerna, Michael Pattinson and Eric Field like this. Curt Doolittle (hat tip to Paul Bakhmut)
-
Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E')
DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )
COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.
-
Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E')
DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )
COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.
-
Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E’)
DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )
COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.