Theme: Measurement

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544033582 Timestamp) GODS AS UNITS OF MEASURE —“Curt, when you say ‘A GOD is a unit of measure’, what do you mean? This idea hit me strictly from the judeo christian “god made man in his image”. Like a blue print. But i have found that referring to god as a unit of measure only seems to offend christians jews and muslims. My point was never meant to insult. Yaweh , Allah, Odin, even Satan are units of measure. Where as men we are meant to measure ourselves against as to see how and where we need to grow to become better. …i had to quit talking about this at work.”— First, while most people consider the big ideas, very few people think very deep thoughts. And the vast majority who try (like anything else) fail catastrophically. I tend to avoid such conversations unless others start them and make some error that I feel they would benefit from, or the commons would benefit from, correcting. And then, it might be better to say that a god or gods function as a system of measurement, by which people of the same god, make the same measurements (judgments), because those measurements are commensurable (compatible). Different gods require different sets of measurements, producing different judgements, that are internally commensurable (compatible) but externally not. So in this sense it’s a system of measurement we are referring to. And that is because anthropomorphism is much easier for we simple human animals to work with that reason science, and calculation. There are some relatively universal traits among all gods, but there are many differences. Particularly when ‘gods’ are ‘spirits’ or ‘ancestors’ rather than fictional characters. Those gods we ‘thank’ and persist their investments in us (ancestors), those gods that are like fickle humans and fickle nature for us to thank for the good, and outwit for the bad (european), those gods that provide wisdom (buddha), those gods that are slave-owners (abrahamic), each function as a system of measurement by which we understand, judge, and act in response to the universe and gods and politics and each other. The western Method of math, logic, Science, Economics, Law, History and Literature is a better system of measure – for an aristocracy of the middle class and higher. It does however require a great deal more training for a great deal longer, than children’s stories and anthropomorphic systems of measurement.

  • (FB 1543945455 Timestamp) (In studio. working on The Measurement of Art video.)

    (FB 1543945455 Timestamp) (In studio. working on The Measurement of Art video.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544148555 Timestamp) OLOGY VS ISM by Bill Joslin New corrected dichotomy” *-ology vs *-ism. *-Ologies exist as mean of measurement and utility; *-isms as rationalizations for doxia and opinion. ( ouch I’m gonna have to do some work because of that one ..)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544149868 Timestamp) WHAT TEACHING METHOD ARE YOU SEEING HERE? (‘one room schoolhouse’, ‘scraps of your attention’, ‘games’) I write series, tables, definitions, aphorisms, arguments, expositions. (See ‘Koans’.) For color (breaks) I write essays, opinion, nonsense, and diary entries. Why? best way to teach complexity by using scraps of your attention. a book (which i am still editing) would crush all but the few. These “games” allow a lot of people to learn a little at a time at their pace, with new people coming on board all the time. people go away and return when the are ready. some spin off. some quickly master. i cant control the classroom so i control the content. very much like running a big one room schoolhouse: repetition at different levels of complexity while asking some students to help others. it is the old, pre-industrial method of teaching and it is more suitable for teaching where the industrial method is good only for sorting people and filtering them into occupational groups. IMO we should work and socialize more, exercise more, read more, and run classes like this instead of how we do today. -Curt

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544148555 Timestamp) OLOGY VS ISM by Bill Joslin New corrected dichotomy” *-ology vs *-ism. *-Ologies exist as mean of measurement and utility; *-isms as rationalizations for doxia and opinion. ( ouch I’m gonna have to do some work because of that one ..)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544626422 Timestamp) —“Things like motivation can only be measured in the outcomes they produce. You can claim to be as motivated as you like; but with not fruits, you’d only be demonstrating/ expressing a lie {a claim to motivation you don’t demonstrate}.”–Brandon Hayes

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544626378 Timestamp) —“Inferences can’t be measured, property-en-toto (a demonstrated definition – i.e. demonstrated interests) can. so no, couching agency isn’t a meta-frame for cults, nor a result of ignorance of the agency-structure interdependence, but rather a matter of calculating agency by its resulting output. (the key point of confusion is the presumption that property is restricted to tangible stuff [materialism] where as property-en-toto includes the intangibles, things like, relationships, goals, identity – anything we invest our time, effort and care into [demonstrated investment])”— Bill Joslin Perfect. No one will defeat Bill now.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544626422 Timestamp) —“Things like motivation can only be measured in the outcomes they produce. You can claim to be as motivated as you like; but with not fruits, you’d only be demonstrating/ expressing a lie {a claim to motivation you don’t demonstrate}.”–Brandon Hayes

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544626378 Timestamp) —“Inferences can’t be measured, property-en-toto (a demonstrated definition – i.e. demonstrated interests) can. so no, couching agency isn’t a meta-frame for cults, nor a result of ignorance of the agency-structure interdependence, but rather a matter of calculating agency by its resulting output. (the key point of confusion is the presumption that property is restricted to tangible stuff [materialism] where as property-en-toto includes the intangibles, things like, relationships, goals, identity – anything we invest our time, effort and care into [demonstrated investment])”— Bill Joslin Perfect. No one will defeat Bill now.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544724200 Timestamp) SECOND BIT OF CLARITY FOR THE DAY: DIMENSIONS OF DUE DILIGENCE Dimensions of Necessary Warranty of Due Diligence:

    • 0 identity
    • 1 internal consistency (logical) (verbal)
    • 2 external correspondence (empirical) (existential)
    • 3 existential possibility (operational) (actionable)
    • 4 rational choice (voluntary and rational) (choice)

    + 5 reciprocity (reciprocally voluntary and rational)(morality)

    + limits, full accounting, and parsimony (complete)

    = Coherence (complete consistency) (a) I sometimes don’t separate out rational choice and reciprocity and simply use Morality for the combination. (b) I sometimes don’t enumerate limits, full accounting, and parsimony, but just use full accounting. (c) I sometimes don’t mention coherence because it only seems to confuse people that it’s the consistency across all of the dimensions (d )All of these are simply tests of consistency within or across (coherence) dimensions that it is possible for man to test. (e) Limits, Full Accounting, Parsimony, are tests of every individual dimension The rest of the tests, only the given dimension.