If you yourself cannot constrain yourself to operational language (strictly constructed grammar) in ordinary language, yet you treat formal grammars (mathematics: constant positional relations), and logic (constant semantic relations), and physics (constant physical state relations) as they should be; formal grammars – then you are holding a double standard.
Why is it that you cannot write in, speak in, think in equally logical and scientific prose? Yet it is that inability to speak in equally scientific prose that leads you to the conclusions you hold.
Thereby attributing to your own state authority that cannot exist because it lacks the rigor of those grammar and semantics that you refer to with authority?
Why would intellectual history be complicated? Why is the physical world (subatomic, atomic, chemical, biological, sentient) not ‘simple’ in, that like higher mathematics, forms lie groups (externalities) that limit the permutations of the underlying grammar (operations) – and then this cycle repeats itself, producing in the physical world, what we call sciences at every hierarchy of chose limits?
All I have really done is state that:
(a) via negativa is all that we can search for. What remains (as in markets) is a truth candidate. And we are actually quite good at falsification (criticism).
(b) that the logics, sciences, and ethics serve only as via-negativa deflationary grammars (processes of continuous disambiguation) that remove ambiguity and error.
(c) that the operational revolution failed in the 20th century due to lagging justificationism, and that the hard sciences adopted it, and that the law has always adhered to it, and that operational grammar serves as a deflationary grammar that falsifies (disambiguates) fictionalisms (fiction, pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism, supernaturalism.
(d) that humans feel, reason, and act to acquire predictable categories, and that these categories are constant across all of us (given biases in the genders) – and without htat constancy we would not be able to empathize, and without being able to empathize, we would not be able to cooperate.
I had to adapt or create a lot of terminology from all fields in order to produce an operational semantics (vocabulary) without resorting to continental ‘word fabrication’. And as such, it’s a bit unnatural and difficult to learn.
But it is far better than colloquial or disciplinary vocabularies and their pretenses of knowledge – particularly their pretense of knowledge of existence.
Why is it that you cannot write in, speak in, think in equally logical and scientific prose? Yet it is that inability to speak in equally scientific prose that leads you to the conclusions you hold.
Thereby attributing to your own state authority that cannot exist because it lacks the rigor of those grammar and semantics that you refer to with authority?
Why would intellectual history be complicated? Why is the physical world (subatomic, atomic, chemical, biological, sentient) not ‘simple’ in, that like higher mathematics, forms lie groups (externalities) that limit the permutations of the underlying grammar (operations) – and then this cycle repeats itself, producing in the physical world, what we call sciences at every hierarchy of chose limits?
All I have really done is state that:
(a) via negativa is all that we can search for. What remains (as in markets) is a truth candidate. And we are actually quite good at falsification (criticism).
(b) that the logics, sciences, and ethics serve only as via-negativa deflationary grammars (processes of continuous disambiguation) that remove ambiguity and error.
(c) that the operational revolution failed in the 20th century due to lagging justificationism, and that the hard sciences adopted it, and that the law has always adhered to it, and that operational grammar serves as a deflationary grammar that falsifies (disambiguates) fictionalisms (fiction, pseudoscience, pseudo rationalism, supernaturalism.
(d) that humans feel, reason, and act to acquire predictable categories, and that these categories are constant across all of us (given biases in the genders) – and without htat constancy we would not be able to empathize, and without being able to empathize, we would not be able to cooperate.
I had to adapt or create a lot of terminology from all fields in order to produce an operational semantics (vocabulary) without resorting to continental ‘word fabrication’. And as such, it’s a bit unnatural and difficult to learn.
But it is far better than colloquial or disciplinary vocabularies and their pretenses of knowledge – particularly their pretense of knowledge of existence.
