Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • 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.

  • TARSKI IS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO FORMAL LANGUAGES Formal languages are subset

    TARSKI IS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO FORMAL LANGUAGES

    Formal 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.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-25 06:35:00 UTC

  • TRUTH VS PROMISE : SOME EXAMPLES —“It is worthy of notice that the sentence “I

    TRUTH VS PROMISE : SOME EXAMPLES

    —“It is worthy of notice that the sentence “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as the sentence “It is true that I smell the scent of violets.” So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth. “—(Frege?)

    I disagree.

    “I smell the scent of violets” has the same content as “I attest that I smell the scent of violets”or “I promise to you that I smell the scent of violets.” Whether it is true or not has nothing to do with your utterance.

    –“The snow is white, if and only if the snow is white”–

    The snow can’t ‘be’ anything. It cannot act, nor perceive the passage of time, which gives rise to the ability to determine changes in state.

    Instead the operationally correct statement is “I observe that the snow appears white in color. I promise that if you observe the snow, that you will also agree that it appears white in color. If both of us observe that it appears white in color, then we can agree that all observers of the snow will also observe that appears white in color.”

    Now, this is extremely burdensome language. That’s why we don’t use it. But it is a mistake to take an aggregate “the snow is white in color” and attribute the same logical meaning to it as “I observe that the snow appears to be white in color, and I promise that if you observe the snow that you will also agree that it appears white in color.”

    All aggregates launder (lose) information. That’s the problem with aggregates. It’s not only a problem when we create a category, or when we add numbers together to create a sum, or call the square root of two a ‘number’ when it is a function, but it’s also a problem when we summarize informationally dense statements for the sake of brevity.

    Operational language is burdensome. But it prevents the evolution of what appear to be complex problems, from that which is merely a byproduct of aggregation (laundering).

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-24 12:20:00 UTC

  • MY MANY TERMINOLOGY CRITICS 🙂 I don’t like to just ‘point’ to my glossary entri

    http://www.propertarianism.com/glossary/TO MY MANY TERMINOLOGY CRITICS 🙂

    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/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 06:38:00 UTC

  • ON ENGLISH AS THE LANGUAGE OF ETHICS (cross posted for archival purposes) Englis

    ON ENGLISH AS THE LANGUAGE OF ETHICS

    (cross posted for archival purposes)

    English 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.

    Now, 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

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-12 05:33:00 UTC

  • PROHIBITING OBSCURANT SPEECH WITH E-PRIME (E’) DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been;

    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. )

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-04 15:31:00 UTC

  • Lou Rockwell Pissing On The Terminological Fire Hydrant

    [I]f Lou wants to claim ‘libertarian’ as the name for a political movement that advocates lying, deception, and general scumbaggery, then why should we morally allow the term liberty and libertarian to be associated with lying, deception, and immoral scumbaggery? Sorry. The origin of liberty is aristocracy, not parasitic low trust, lying, cheating, dishonest scumbaggery. Liberty isn’t your fire-hydrant Lou. You had your chance. you picked an immoral ethical code and failed. You picked a pseudoscience and failed. It’s time for the next generation to try to do better. Sorry man, but Rothbardianism is a dead cat bounce. http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/

  • The 'Tells' Of Continental, Cosmopolitan And Enlightenment Arguments

    (important) [T]he signature property (the ‘tell’) of continental argument is conflation, in which the purpose of argument is an attempt to construct authority. (German and French) Signature property (the ‘tell’) of cosmopolitan thought is ‘the prestige’ (distraction), in which the purpose of an argument is to distract from the central, more obvious one by means of cunning. (Jewish). The signature property (the ‘tell’) of anglo enlightenment thought is the assumption of universalism. These three ‘tells’ are all means of deception and error in order to justify the metaphysical assumption about what is ‘good’.

  • The 'Tells' Of Continental, Cosmopolitan And Enlightenment Arguments

    (important) [T]he signature property (the ‘tell’) of continental argument is conflation, in which the purpose of argument is an attempt to construct authority. (German and French) Signature property (the ‘tell’) of cosmopolitan thought is ‘the prestige’ (distraction), in which the purpose of an argument is to distract from the central, more obvious one by means of cunning. (Jewish). The signature property (the ‘tell’) of anglo enlightenment thought is the assumption of universalism. These three ‘tells’ are all means of deception and error in order to justify the metaphysical assumption about what is ‘good’.

  • The ‘Tells’ Of Continental, Cosmopolitan And Enlightenment Arguments

    (important) [T]he signature property (the ‘tell’) of continental argument is conflation, in which the purpose of argument is an attempt to construct authority. (German and French) Signature property (the ‘tell’) of cosmopolitan thought is ‘the prestige’ (distraction), in which the purpose of an argument is to distract from the central, more obvious one by means of cunning. (Jewish). The signature property (the ‘tell’) of anglo enlightenment thought is the assumption of universalism. These three ‘tells’ are all means of deception and error in order to justify the metaphysical assumption about what is ‘good’.