Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • Existential, Experiential, and Objective

    ON THE EXISTENTIAL, EXPERIENTIAL, AND OBJECTIVE (OBSERVABLE)
    (worth repeating)

    [H]umans are usually, when not defective, capable of reasoning – meaning comparing and contrasting properties, methods and relations, then forecasting, then ranking and choosing – usually without much introspective requirement – although our abilities to do so differ vastly. Very often we use language to organize these thoughts, which then frames the thoughts themselves by the language available to the speaker.

    One can be sentient (aware of changes in state of memory) and willing, but not able to make rational judgements. (see Sacks). One’s rational judgements can be internally consistent, and therefore self-justifiable as rational, but externally non-correspondent (false) and therefore objectively non-rational. (or more easily stated, an individual may be too incompetent or ignorant to make an objectively rational assessment.)

    So while we use the term ‘rational’ categorically, we cannot ‘cheat’ and because of that verbalism, conflate the existence, the experience, and the measure. This is also the technique used by the postmoderns, of whom Heidegger is the most advanced, in their attempt to restate truth as experiential rather than objective. For him, Being is experiencing, not acting. This is an elaborate defense of hedonic ignorance. The most anti-rational set of ideas yet made.

    It is possibly not obvious that advocating both Popper’s Platonic Truth, and your above statement that we “ARE” rational (which is also an obscurant use of the verb to-be) with as Experiential Truth, is itself a contradictory definition of Truth. We may use language to mask the point of view, but points of view are different: existential, experiential, and objective are three different points of view.

    (I suspect this might be brain-frying, because I have to actually pay attention when I’m writing it myself this morning) lol Operational language, constant awareness of the ‘fungibility’ of empty verbalisms, has helped me avoid these mistakes.

  • An Advancement On E-Prime?

    … I THINK? CHANGING IT FROM PREFERENCE FOR MEANING TO NECESSITY FOR TESTIMONY?

    [I]’ve been reading more on General Semantics and their meme E-Prime, and it’s pretty interesting how they advocate GS/E’ for the purpose of clarity and meaning.

    Now, I advocate E’ and Operationalism because one cannot testify to the truth of a statement if one cannot state it in operational language. Because you can’t possibly state that you know what you’re talking about.

    So, I think my argument in favor of E’ as a moral and ethical constraint, (and in the case of negative externalities, a criminal constraint) is stronger than the argument for ‘clarity and meaning’.

    ON A MY CONTINUED FRUSTRATION WITH A PRIORISM AS A VERBALISM
    [I]’ve still got to address the strange a priorist argument that there is something particularly interesting about decreasing precision (making general statements). Yes we can drop properties of many similar instances in order to construct sets of commons properties, and give them names. But this is an inverse of the problem of making general observations and investigating which properties we observe are necessary and which are not.

    Some descriptions, if made more precisely have no meaning: “wind” and “wave” are pretty good examples. At human scale they are meaningful statements. below human scale they are not. All statements of precision have maximum and minimum points of demarcation.

    I mean, i guess if you start with instrumentalism, you implicitly start with human scale and the problem of precision and arbitrary precision as necessary properties of any description (theory).

    I just guess this is one of those things that’s so obvious to me that I can’t imagine a literary alternative because I did not learn philosophy by literary (allegorical) means.

    Curt

  • An Advancement On E-Prime?

    … I THINK? CHANGING IT FROM PREFERENCE FOR MEANING TO NECESSITY FOR TESTIMONY?

    [I]’ve been reading more on General Semantics and their meme E-Prime, and it’s pretty interesting how they advocate GS/E’ for the purpose of clarity and meaning.

    Now, I advocate E’ and Operationalism because one cannot testify to the truth of a statement if one cannot state it in operational language. Because you can’t possibly state that you know what you’re talking about.

    So, I think my argument in favor of E’ as a moral and ethical constraint, (and in the case of negative externalities, a criminal constraint) is stronger than the argument for ‘clarity and meaning’.

    ON A MY CONTINUED FRUSTRATION WITH A PRIORISM AS A VERBALISM
    [I]’ve still got to address the strange a priorist argument that there is something particularly interesting about decreasing precision (making general statements). Yes we can drop properties of many similar instances in order to construct sets of commons properties, and give them names. But this is an inverse of the problem of making general observations and investigating which properties we observe are necessary and which are not.

    Some descriptions, if made more precisely have no meaning: “wind” and “wave” are pretty good examples. At human scale they are meaningful statements. below human scale they are not. All statements of precision have maximum and minimum points of demarcation.

    I mean, i guess if you start with instrumentalism, you implicitly start with human scale and the problem of precision and arbitrary precision as necessary properties of any description (theory).

    I just guess this is one of those things that’s so obvious to me that I can’t imagine a literary alternative because I did not learn philosophy by literary (allegorical) means.

    Curt

  • CONSEQUENCES: THE UNLOADED LANGUAGE OF AUTISTICS It is interesting, as an autist

    CONSEQUENCES: THE UNLOADED LANGUAGE OF AUTISTICS

    It is interesting, as an autistic, who thinks in almost entirely spatial terms, and who, for many, many years, as struggled to find a language for communicating those ideas in as unloaded form as I visualize them (and found it), to watch one’s own skill improve with constant practice, to the point where one sees all humans making similar mistakes using loaded language of convention that they do not understand except as loose associations. Whereas as an autistic a loose association is extremely uncomfortable, if not disturbing – something to be avoided at all costs. We lacked (prior to the work I’m doing) a language for communicating ‘loaded’ social concepts in unloaded form, and had to rely on the closest analogies available (physics and science) as proxies. But those analogies are only that – not descriptions, but analogies, and human behavior is not, like the physical universe, insulated from heuristic and constant changes in relations, methods, and properties.

    I have always been able to identify autistic speech, but it wasn’t until recently that I understood that we all do exactly the same thing – sense a reality that we have no words for, and cannot quite complete, and frustratingly use analogies unsuited to the application to express those ideas. These analogies are useful because they lack the loading that rather ‘poetic’ human discourse develops with use, like the marks in an old an still functioning machine part – still useful for the original purpose but no longer suitable for the fine work it was originally designed to produce.

    Normals do not shy from loaded speech – they revel in it. They use it to attempt to persuade or lie to one another that the world is, or should be one way or another. Truth is undesirable unless it advances that world view. And our world views are but representations that suit our reproductive strategies. Truth is for aristocracy.

    Is propertarianism but the logical consequence of attempting to solve autistic speech in the social sciences? Its Propertarianism – the formal logic of cooperation – merely the natural result of an autistic mind’s frustration at the inability to express ideas in unladen form? Am I just a genetic machine, probabilistically, if not deterministically, producing an available output given that the patterns developed in multiple fields of inquiry made such a leap possible given human ability to form parallels between patterns of limited difference?

    I don’t really like to think about life in those terms, because it’s dehumanizing. But I suspect that is closer to the truth than not.

    I wonder if propertarianism can help all autistics, as it can help normals. But I suspect that the truth it provides us with is further alienating.

    He who breeds wins, and the locusts breed better than the lions.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-24 10:39:00 UTC

  • ON THE EXISTENTIAL, EXPERIENTIAL, AND OBJECTIVE (OBSERVABLE) (worth repeating) H

    ON THE EXISTENTIAL, EXPERIENTIAL, AND OBJECTIVE (OBSERVABLE)

    (worth repeating)

    Humans are usually, when not defective, capable of reasoning – meaning comparing and contrasting properties, methods and relations, then forecasting, then ranking and choosing – usually without much introspective requirement – although our abilities to do so differ vastly. Very often we use language to organize these thoughts, which then frames the thoughts themselves by the language available to the actor.

    One can be sentient (aware of changes in state of memory) and willing, but not able to make rational judgements. (see Sacks). One’s rational judgements can be internally consistent, and therefore self-justifiable as rational, but externally non-correspondent (false) and therefore objectively non-rational. (or more easily stated, an individual may be too incompetent or ignorant to make an objectively rational assessment.)

    So while we use the term ‘rational’ categorically, we cannot ‘cheat’ and because of that verbalism, conflate the existence, the experience, and the measure. This is also the technique used by the postmoderns, of whom Heidegger is the most advanced, in their attempt to restate truth as experiential rather than objective. For him, Being is experiencing, not acting. This is an elaborate defense of hedonic ignorance. The most anti-rational set of ideas yet made.

    It is possibly not obvious that advocating both Popper’s Platonic Truth, and your above statement that we “ARE” rational (which is also an obscurant use of the verb to-be) with as Experiential Truth, is itself a contradictory definition of Truth. We may use language to mask the point of view, but points of view are different: existential, experiential, and objective are three different points of view.

    (I suspect this might be brain-frying, because I have to actually pay attention when I’m writing it myself this morning) lol Operational language, constant awareness of the ‘fungibility’ of empty verbalisms, has helped me avoid these mistakes.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-24 10:11:00 UTC

  • Is It Possible To Reconcile Tort Reform And Libertarian Philosophy?

    Um.  This isn’t necessarily a libertarian issue so much as a logical one.  The problem is that jury determination of penalties is arbitrary, and incalculable so that risk is un-measurable, and that penalties of scale are just passed on to consumers.  This means that lawsuits can be pursued as lottery ticket purchases by all but the defendant, and that organizations must seek to escape rather than honestly resolve disputes.

    The libertarian argument would require the elimination of limited liability, the removal of employee indemnification, and of management and board liability. All of these existing protections were provided by the government in order to allow abuses of the law in order to increase employment and tax revenues. So, instead, libertarians would recommend that all employees and all employers carry insurance against malfeasance. And that insurance companies would require a great deal of contractual adherence, training in exchange, in order to cover losses.  Misbehavior would break the contract, pierce any corporate veil, and open every employee, manger, executive, and board member in the causal chain to personal suit.

    If you want a less corrupt america, then remove the government from the process – because the government is the cause.

    This is the best I can do in short form, but it should get the libertarian point across: the common law, civic participation, personal accountability, and insurance companies provide market incentives that bureaucratic monopolies do not.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-reconcile-tort-reform-and-libertarian-philosophy

  • Is It Possible To Reconcile Tort Reform And Libertarian Philosophy?

    Um.  This isn’t necessarily a libertarian issue so much as a logical one.  The problem is that jury determination of penalties is arbitrary, and incalculable so that risk is un-measurable, and that penalties of scale are just passed on to consumers.  This means that lawsuits can be pursued as lottery ticket purchases by all but the defendant, and that organizations must seek to escape rather than honestly resolve disputes.

    The libertarian argument would require the elimination of limited liability, the removal of employee indemnification, and of management and board liability. All of these existing protections were provided by the government in order to allow abuses of the law in order to increase employment and tax revenues. So, instead, libertarians would recommend that all employees and all employers carry insurance against malfeasance. And that insurance companies would require a great deal of contractual adherence, training in exchange, in order to cover losses.  Misbehavior would break the contract, pierce any corporate veil, and open every employee, manger, executive, and board member in the causal chain to personal suit.

    If you want a less corrupt america, then remove the government from the process – because the government is the cause.

    This is the best I can do in short form, but it should get the libertarian point across: the common law, civic participation, personal accountability, and insurance companies provide market incentives that bureaucratic monopolies do not.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-reconcile-tort-reform-and-libertarian-philosophy

  • If You Could Only Own One Libertarian Treatise, Which One Would You Choose: ‘human Action’,â  ‘man, Economy, And State’, Or ‘the Constitution Of Liberty’?

    Human action is a work of pseudoscience through chapter 15, and after 15 is fully integrated into mainstream economics.  So it is not useful.  Mises failed to discern that economics, like physics and mathematics was subject to an epistemic requirement for operational definitions. And while he intuited something close to correct, he was unable to solve it, and first cast praxeology as a ‘science’ without reliance upon the scientific method – which by itself is a definition of a pseudoscience, and second, stated that all of economics was deducible from the first principle of human action. Also demonstrably false, and solidifying his work as pseudoscientific.  The correct answer in operational terms is that if any empirical observation in economics cannot be reduced to a sequence of rational human actions, then it cannot in fact be ‘true’.   The first 15 chapters are an elaborate attempt to justify his fallacy.

    Man economy and state ignores, and like all of Rothbard’s works,  intentionally attempts to undermine the western competitive cultural advantage that northern europeans, by virtue of constructing the only high trust society, are the only people on earth capable of constructing commons.  So, this book is actually half correct – bureaucracy leads to despotism.  And half deception: that does not mean that the organized construction of commons and the prevention of free riding upon or consumption of those commons is not a strategic competitive advantage, or that commons cannot be produced through alternative means.  It is an elaborate fallacy on the scale, if not quality, of Freud’s psychology, Marx’s Capital, Cantor’s sets and Mises’ Praxeology.

    The Constitution of liberty is an historical and scholarly work demonstrating that the only known means of preserving freedom is through a constitution of private property rights and the organic evolution of the common law.   Hayek’s failure in his work, was his reliance on what was know in his day, and his insufficient emphasis on the scope of property rights, original intent,  and strict construction, nor the institutional means of maintaining those three constraints.  Unfortunately for all three authors, computer science would rescue the world from platonism, where logic, math, science, and economics had failed: the existence proof, and our ability to promise that we make true statements.

    Of these three the only book of value is the Constitution of Liberty.  The rest is simply

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/If-you-could-only-own-one-Libertarian-treatise-which-one-would-you-choose-Human-Action-Man-Economy-and-State-or-The-Constitution-of-Liberty

  • A logical statement, in formal language statement is not semantically bound (cor

    A logical statement, in formal language statement is not semantically bound (correspondent with reality); it is an axiomatic argument and is merely internally consistent. The only information present is that stated in the axioms.

    A statement in informal language *is* semantically bound (correspondent with reality). There is more information present in informal languages than in formal languages.

    A statement in normative ‘natural’ language is not logically bound, or semantically bound, but merely a matter of useful communication – short hand. There is information outside of the statements necessary to interpret them.

    A statement in colloquial language consists of a mixture of natural and analogical symbols neither logically, correspondently, nor normatively bound. There is both information and structure outside of the statements and structure necessary to interpret them.

    Operational language is an informal language (correspondent with reality) bound not internally, but by existence. It is a higher standard than natural langauge.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-05 11:58:00 UTC

  • AN ADVANCEMENT ON E-PRIME, I THINK? CHANGING IT FROM PREFERENCE FOR MEANING TO N

    AN ADVANCEMENT ON E-PRIME, I THINK? CHANGING IT FROM PREFERENCE FOR MEANING TO NECESSITY FOR TESTIMONY?

    I’ve been reading more on General Semantics and their meme E-Prime, and it’s pretty interesting how they advocate GS/E’ for the purpose of clarity and meaning.

    Now, I advocate E’ and Operationalism because one cannot testify to the truth of a statement if one cannot state it in operational language. Because you can’t possibly state that you know what you’re talking about.

    So, I think my argument in favor of E’ as a moral and ethical constraint, (and in the case of negative externalities, a criminal constraint) is stronger than the argument for ‘clarity and meaning’.

    ON A MY CONTINUED FRUSTRATION WITH A PRIORISM AS A VERBALISM

    I’ve still got to address the strange a priorist argument that there is something particularly interesting about decreasing precision (making general statements). Yes we can drop properties of many similar instances in order to construct sets of commons properties, and give them names. But this is an inverse of the problem of making general observations and investigating which properties we observe are necessary and which are not.

    Some descriptions, if made more precisely have no meaning: “wind” and “wave” are pretty good examples. At human scale they are meaningful statements. below human scale they are not. All statements of precision have maximum and minimum points of demarcation.

    I mean, i guess if you start with instrumentalism, you implicitly start with human scale and the problem of precision and arbitrary precision as necessary properties of any description (theory).

    I just guess this is one of those things that’s so obvious to me that I can’t imagine a literary alternative because I did not learn philosophy by literary (allegorical) means.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-04 04:49:00 UTC