Simple Deep Understanding of Operational Language https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/simple-deep-understanding-of-operational-language/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 20:17:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232399360698261505
(core) (operational language) (or, why you don’t get it at first) Jason asks, “is this sentence correct ePrime?” We probably need to stop using the ePrime reference and simply teach people the steps to transforming fuzzy intuitive language to very clear operational language. The first step is eliminating the Copula (the connector): the verb to-be. This connector says “imply the connection” it does not state the connection. This is how ‘suggestion’ (deceit) is inserted into our otherwise very precise, english language. It’s the basis of all sophism. The second step, which may be necessary to complete the first step requires starting sentences with the subject rather than the actor – and this is what’s probably causing your struggle. P and ePrime ask you to think in terms of actor rather than subject. To put the actor before the subject in composing your “episode”. Thinking in, writing in, speaking in actors, adds a computational cycle, because the more advanced our thinking the more we’re thinking about subjects rather than actors. And the more ‘generalized’ our statement – which means the more masculine and analytic – the more the subject is the basis for context and the less the actor is the basis for content. So yes, operational language is slightly more burdensome, because it is more precise – at least until you habituate it. The Example: –“With the ability to protect it with violent defense, exercised at will, on an individual and group level, “— Change to: —At an individual or group level, [we / they] [can / develop the ability to] protect [it / or restate subject] with violent defense, exercised at will.”— Phrase: 1 – actor 2 – acted upon 3 – consequence So: 1 – Repeat with Collection of Phrases. 2- Producing a Complete sentence. 3- That explicitly states the COMPLETE transformation (Transaction) In other worlds:
and not: Language in operational terms is an accounting system That’s the secret of operational language “full accounting of changes in state”. Phrase (debit) Journal Entry , Phrase (credit) Journal Entry Sentence = Ledger Entry. Paragraph = Income Statement Story = Balance Sheet If you begin to see ‘the grammars’ in everything you will finally understand why P is so powerful … and it will, at some point, horrify you with wonder at it all. Language is a means of measurement. Arithmetic is a very precise language Accounting is just a very precise language. Geometry is another precise language Programming is another precise language P-Law is another precise language P-Testimony is the most precise language possible All language functions as a system of measurement using measurements provided by the human body. and accounting of changes in state in that measurement system. Why? Because the brain does nothing other than detect and predict, changes in state. We can either account well(operational language), or account poorly(ordinary language), or account deceptively (postmodern/feminist language) I hope this helps because it is the summary of the meaning of operational prose. ==== attn: Bill Joslin
(core) (operational language) (or, why you don’t get it at first) Jason asks, “is this sentence correct ePrime?” We probably need to stop using the ePrime reference and simply teach people the steps to transforming fuzzy intuitive language to very clear operational language. The first step is eliminating the Copula (the connector): the verb to-be. This connector says “imply the connection” it does not state the connection. This is how ‘suggestion’ (deceit) is inserted into our otherwise very precise, english language. It’s the basis of all sophism. The second step, which may be necessary to complete the first step requires starting sentences with the subject rather than the actor – and this is what’s probably causing your struggle. P and ePrime ask you to think in terms of actor rather than subject. To put the actor before the subject in composing your “episode”. Thinking in, writing in, speaking in actors, adds a computational cycle, because the more advanced our thinking the more we’re thinking about subjects rather than actors. And the more ‘generalized’ our statement – which means the more masculine and analytic – the more the subject is the basis for context and the less the actor is the basis for content. So yes, operational language is slightly more burdensome, because it is more precise – at least until you habituate it. The Example: –“With the ability to protect it with violent defense, exercised at will, on an individual and group level, “— Change to: —At an individual or group level, [we / they] [can / develop the ability to] protect [it / or restate subject] with violent defense, exercised at will.”— Phrase: 1 – actor 2 – acted upon 3 – consequence So: 1 – Repeat with Collection of Phrases. 2- Producing a Complete sentence. 3- That explicitly states the COMPLETE transformation (Transaction) In other worlds:
and not: Language in operational terms is an accounting system That’s the secret of operational language “full accounting of changes in state”. Phrase (debit) Journal Entry , Phrase (credit) Journal Entry Sentence = Ledger Entry. Paragraph = Income Statement Story = Balance Sheet If you begin to see ‘the grammars’ in everything you will finally understand why P is so powerful … and it will, at some point, horrify you with wonder at it all. Language is a means of measurement. Arithmetic is a very precise language Accounting is just a very precise language. Geometry is another precise language Programming is another precise language P-Law is another precise language P-Testimony is the most precise language possible All language functions as a system of measurement using measurements provided by the human body. and accounting of changes in state in that measurement system. Why? Because the brain does nothing other than detect and predict, changes in state. We can either account well(operational language), or account poorly(ordinary language), or account deceptively (postmodern/feminist language) I hope this helps because it is the summary of the meaning of operational prose. ==== attn: Bill Joslin
More on Learning Operational Grammar https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/more-on-learning-operational-grammar/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:11:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232367603307491329
(core) What is the difference between an actor and subject? My understanding of traditional grammar is that: “John threw the ball” Subject-verb-object Which you describe as Actor-operation-subject John is an actor in this case, and the “subject” (as I was taught in school, anyway). Another example: “The fruit fell from the tree” Subject-verb-object In this sentence, one might think the actor is gravity, or the wind. Since that is what caused the change in state. From a testimonial or vitruvian measurement, though, it would be more like: “I saw the fruit fall from the tree.” The actor is myself as an observer? And the subject is the fruit? Any clarification on terms “actor” and “subject”? by Adam Jacob Robert Walker: You could consider the tree as an actor as well. The tree produces fruit. But a tree isn’t necessarily following incentives. But rather it’s “act” is a result of nature adaptations or mechanisms of survival. I think you are correct that you’d have to switch it to the orientation of the observer. I saw the fruit fall from the tree (actor-action), after I went outside to get my mail (incentive to go outside and observe), and the fruit splattered on my driveway (state change on the ground). I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors. by Bill Joslin: In english grammar the subject is the agent subject-verb-object. the subject “acts upon” the object (side note: this distinction subject “that which acts upon”and object “that which is acted upon” lay the foundation for the initial use of the terms subjective, objective. prior to the 19th century of so, religion was considered the pursuit of “objective truth” in that one would he changed by the truth (truth acts upon the seeker) and subjective truth was what one did when they sought truth to a specific ends (such as science investigates a particular phenomenon to eventually be able to do something with it). the rise of science (seeking truth to a specific ends) “killed” objective truth – this was the assertion in Horkhiemer and Adorno’ Dialectic of enlightenment. by Adam Jacob Robert Walker Nice. That puts it in a philosophical context for me. I wasn’t aware of all that. by Curt Doolittle[I promise I saw] [gravity cause] the fruit [fall/fell] [from the tree] [to the ground.] Promise, Testimony, Actor, Subject of testimony, Transaction. Use subject or object if you want, but my point is that we need to use “actor, and in the OP that I started this discourse with, I was making the point that we habitually start sentences with the subject being acted upon to provide context, and the cost of ‘thinking’ in operational terms is the extra step required to start with actor instead – which eliminates the problem of the verb to be from the sentence structure. If you have a difficulty with eliminating the verb to be, start with the actor not the object( or as I prefer, subject). ADAM IS CORRECT: Actor, Subject. —“I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors.”— Well done!!!!!
(core) What is the difference between an actor and subject? My understanding of traditional grammar is that: “John threw the ball” Subject-verb-object Which you describe as Actor-operation-subject John is an actor in this case, and the “subject” (as I was taught in school, anyway). Another example: “The fruit fell from the tree” Subject-verb-object In this sentence, one might think the actor is gravity, or the wind. Since that is what caused the change in state. From a testimonial or vitruvian measurement, though, it would be more like: “I saw the fruit fall from the tree.” The actor is myself as an observer? And the subject is the fruit? Any clarification on terms “actor” and “subject”? by Adam Jacob Robert Walker: You could consider the tree as an actor as well. The tree produces fruit. But a tree isn’t necessarily following incentives. But rather it’s “act” is a result of nature adaptations or mechanisms of survival. I think you are correct that you’d have to switch it to the orientation of the observer. I saw the fruit fall from the tree (actor-action), after I went outside to get my mail (incentive to go outside and observe), and the fruit splattered on my driveway (state change on the ground). I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors. by Bill Joslin: In english grammar the subject is the agent subject-verb-object. the subject “acts upon” the object (side note: this distinction subject “that which acts upon”and object “that which is acted upon” lay the foundation for the initial use of the terms subjective, objective. prior to the 19th century of so, religion was considered the pursuit of “objective truth” in that one would he changed by the truth (truth acts upon the seeker) and subjective truth was what one did when they sought truth to a specific ends (such as science investigates a particular phenomenon to eventually be able to do something with it). the rise of science (seeking truth to a specific ends) “killed” objective truth – this was the assertion in Horkhiemer and Adorno’ Dialectic of enlightenment. by Adam Jacob Robert Walker Nice. That puts it in a philosophical context for me. I wasn’t aware of all that. by Curt Doolittle[I promise I saw] [gravity cause] the fruit [fall/fell] [from the tree] [to the ground.] Promise, Testimony, Actor, Subject of testimony, Transaction. Use subject or object if you want, but my point is that we need to use “actor, and in the OP that I started this discourse with, I was making the point that we habitually start sentences with the subject being acted upon to provide context, and the cost of ‘thinking’ in operational terms is the extra step required to start with actor instead – which eliminates the problem of the verb to be from the sentence structure. If you have a difficulty with eliminating the verb to be, start with the actor not the object( or as I prefer, subject). ADAM IS CORRECT: Actor, Subject. —“I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors.”— Well done!!!!!
Operationalism is Hard. https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/operationalism-is-hard/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 17:37:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232359002492801024
—“P’s Operationalism is a lot harder than math. Math is so clear because it’s trivial. P requires much more.”— Adam
Well you’re the first person to fully understand that. This is why I’m getting sort of awed lately – something is happening because people are progressive much faster now. Well as for your observation, math can construct a degree of precision outside of human scales of perception at the very large and very small. But as we have seen in testimony, law, and economics, in human action, the operations available and the grammar to create fully formed, grammatically complete, fully disambiguated statements in P is a lot harder than it is in math. So I see: first-order-logic (categorical logic) > math( positional logic)) > computable logic (programming) > operational logic( p-testimony), as the hierarchy of logics today. And in retrospect all the logics make so much more sense now.
—“P’s Operationalism is a lot harder than math. Math is so clear because it’s trivial. P requires much more.”— Adam
Well you’re the first person to fully understand that. This is why I’m getting sort of awed lately – something is happening because people are progressive much faster now. Well as for your observation, math can construct a degree of precision outside of human scales of perception at the very large and very small. But as we have seen in testimony, law, and economics, in human action, the operations available and the grammar to create fully formed, grammatically complete, fully disambiguated statements in P is a lot harder than it is in math. So I see: first-order-logic (categorical logic) > math( positional logic)) > computable logic (programming) > operational logic( p-testimony), as the hierarchy of logics today. And in retrospect all the logics make so much more sense now.
Operational logic is Demanding https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/operational-logic-is-demanding/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 17:36:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232358815296839681