Via-Negativa: In The Negative

( … )

Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization.

Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements.

So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous).

Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement.

The question is only the precision of the measures.

P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.

COUNSEL: PHILOSOPHY VS SOPHISM

Given any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’.

Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’.

Example:

Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil
constant relations:
1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative
2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest
3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.)

Most sophistry in philosophy consists of:
1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence;
3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon;
4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms.

You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms.

Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more.

ORIGINS
Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics.

Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority.

The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply-demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.).

Dimensions Perceivable By Humans

1. Logic = Constant relations of sense perceptions.
2. Identity =(NAMES)

– Internally consistent, not inconsistent, sets of properties
– Constant Relations between collections of properties.

1. Sets = (LANGUAGE)

– Internally consistent (constant, consistent relations), Relations, , .)
– Constant relations between collections of references

1. Science = (OBSERVATIONS)

– Empirical, externally correspondent, correlative
– Constant Relations between collections of references and reality

1. Operational = (ACTIONS)

– Operationally consistent or operationally possible Causation
– Constant Relations between collections of references, actions, and reality in time.

1. Rational (reasonable) = (RATIONAL INCENTIVE)
   (choice)
2. Reciprocity = (RECIPROCAL INCENTIVES)
   (cooperation)

This is the full set of dimensions of causality that humans can perceive and compare in order to decide.

Each depends upon the one before it.

The Grammars

LANGUAGE IS CALCULATING WITH INCREASING DIMENSIONS
We tend to think of mathematics as calculation (it is) but language is also a form of calculation, and we have just (or I have just) begun to understand that language is a means of calculating (transforming inputs and outputs) in a market (competition) for signaling and influence, that produces continuous improvements in knowledge IF not impeded by error (supernatural, magical, ideal) all of which prohibit precision and increase error counter to the natural, scientific, and operational descriptions.

The Grammars of Truth and Deceit

Grammar (rules) or A Grammar (book) consists of:

• Rules of continuous recursive disambiguation (speech transactions)
• governing the composition(organization) of words, phases, and clauses,
• traditionally divided into:
  • Phonology (systems sounds),
  • Morphology (structure of words, parts of words, relations between words, and intonation, stress, influence of context),
  • Syntax ( the structure – especially meaning word order – of sentences),
  • Punctuation using Symbols to separate and clarify the meaning of a text, or, to speak with the Annunciation, Inflection, Tone, Volume, and Pause to separate and clarify the meaning of speech.
  • Semantics (meaning) and
  • Pragmatics (context),
• often complemented by linguistics:
  • Phonetics (the human production of sounds),

“Grammar” In Testimony

However, “Grammar” in Testimony, also includes the transformation of different Speech Paradigms into a set of Operational Logics.

Formal Operational Logic  vs Formal Set Logics

So we refer to Formal Logic or Formal Set Logic from the interpretation of algebra, text, and scripture (and tea leaves, astrology, and entrails), versus Formal Operational Logic of a sequence of objectively testable human operations, either physical (body), rational(incentive), or logical (cognitive).

That Formal Operational Logic includes:

• The Scope (Dimensions) of Pragmatics.
• The Scope (Dimensions) of Semantics.
• The scope of Syntax (demands requirements for a sentence – meaning transaction) within the scope of those Pragmatics and Semantics
• The Scope (set) of the Operators possible within those Pragmatic and Semantic limitations.
• The Necessary Function of that set of Pragmatics, Semantics, Syntax, and Operators as:
  • disambiguation (eliminate ambiguity to falsify and warranty)
    –vs–
    ambiguation ( increase opportunity for meaning to assist in communication )
• The relationship between:
  • The Necessary Function in the given Pragmatics, Semantics and Operators APPLIED,
    –vs–
    The Pragmatics, Semantics and Operators sufficient for due diligence against error, bias, and deceit that those subject DEMANDS.

So a Traditional Grammar is a ‘Weak’ or “Loose” logic of speech across all Paradigms of Speech, and a Propertarian Grammar is a ‘Strong’ logic of speech for each of those Paradigms of Speech.

We provide a Periodic Table of Speech (Poster really) listing all of the Grammars.

NOTE: Find our Periodic Table of Speech Here <— (Add Link)

… Deceits
… … … Fictionalism
… … … …. Pseudoscience -> Magic
… … … …. Idealism-> Surrealism, and
… … … …. Supernaturalism->Occult

METHODS OF ARGUMENT

1) Expressive (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject.

2) Sentimental (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.

3) Moral (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine. (Also: RELIGIOUS)

4) Reasonable (informal)

5) Rational (logical and formal) – Most philosophical arguments rely upon contradiction and internal consistency rather than external correspondence.

10) Analogical (HISTORICAL) A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period.

6) Scientific (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis”

7) Economic: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation.

8) Ratio-Empirical (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively prove that a position is defensible under all objections. NOTE: See “Styles of Argument” below.

9) Testimonial: (OPERATIONAL) categorically consistent, Internally consistent (logical), Externally Correspondent (Instrumentally observable), Operationally articulated (Possible), Fully Accounted, Moral (free of imposed costs).

10 – Idea – Surreal

11 – Pseudoscicnce-magic
12 – Fictional-Parable

13 – Theology-occult

14 – Lying

Part 999 – Testimony: Truth and Lying

“Truth is the hard problem of both philosophy and science. And Religion is the hard problem of social science. Both were hare to solve largely because we so desperately want to find what isn’t there, and so habituated that preoccupation, that we did not know how to look at the questions without it presuming it was there.”

Truth, Truthful Speech

Demand for Infallibility in Decidability

enough for?

Where Given These Dimensions:

1. Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable).
2. Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable)
3. Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable)
4. Population (Self, Others, All, Universal)

Yields the Series:

1. Indistinguishable(perception) >
2. Distinguishable(cognition) >
3. Memorable(categorical-referrable) >
4. Possible(material) >
5. Actionable(physical) >
6. Choosable(for use) >
7. Preferable(Personal) >
8. Good(interpersonal) >
9. Decidable(political) >
10. True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) >
11. Analytically True >
12. Tautologically True.

Where Truthful Speech that Satisfies the Demand for Increasing Infallibility of Decidability Yields the Series:

1. Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
2. Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources.
3. Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources.
4. Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions.
5. Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
6. Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension, and values.
7. Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (â??Trueâ??)
8. Logical: Decidable out of physical (Theoretical) or logical (Axiomatic) or rational (Bounded Rationality) necessity
9. Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) the market demand for increasingly infallible decidability.

Where Truth Consists in The Series of Definitions

1. Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.
2. Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).
3. Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)
4. Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
5. Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
6. Demonstrated Preference:
   (…)

Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series:

1. Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
2. Internally Consistent (Logical)
3. Externally Correspondent (Empirical)
4. Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)
5. Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)
6. Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)
7. With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry-picking and inflation)
8. Warrantied
   … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
   … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
   … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.

As a Defense Against the Series:

1. Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;
2. Error and failure of Due Diligence;
3. Bias and Wishful Thinking;
4. And the many Deceits of:
   … (a) Loading and Framing;
   … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading(direct) and Propaganda (environmental);
   … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;
   … (d) and outright Fabrications (Deceits)

In Defense or Advocacy Of:

1. Any transfer that is not:
   … (a) productive
   … (b) fully informed
   … (c) warrantied
   … (d) voluntary
   … (e) free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by any externality.

Including but Not Limited to The Series of Those Categories Of:

1. murder,
2. harm, damage, theft,
3. fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,
4. free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons,
5. rent-seeking, corruption, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism,
6. conversion(Religion, Ideology, Sophism,Pseudoscience),
7. displacement(immigration/overbreeding),
8. conquest (war).

Lying and Deceit

And Whereas People lie:

1. To advance an interest
2. To obtain an interest
3. To preserve an interest

And where the Spectrum of Lying consists of:

1. Intent to deceive.
2. Failure of due diligence against lying
3. Carrier of and distributor of lies
4. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies.
5. A genetic predisposition to lie.

Where

1. White Lie: Preservation or construction of an emotional (status, relationship) debt or credit.
2. Grey Lie: Protecting interests from liability due to accidental harm to others’ interests.
3. Black Lie: Gaining an interest by intentional destruction or transfer of another’s interests.
4. Evil Lie: Causing harm to others’ interest for the purpose of causing harm rather than gaining interest for one’s self.

Where;

Lying consists in the Failure of due diligence against:

1. ignorance, error, bias, and wishful thinking,

And making use of:

1. Loading, Framing, Obscuring, Suggestion;
2. Ridiculing, Shaming, Moralizing, Psychologizing, Gossiping, Propagandizing Reputation Destruction;
3. Sophisms (Overloading), (Appealing to cognitive biases);
4. Straw Manning via Negativa, and Heaping of Undue Praise via Positiva;
5. Fictionalisms of Idealism, Innumeracy, Pseudoscience, Supernaturalism;
6. Fictions (Deceit)
7. Denialism

Instead of:

1. Truthful Speech

Free and Truthful Speech

Where Free and Truthful Speech consists in (a) what you can testify to in court. And (b) What you can defend or claim as reciprocal in court. What do you have the knowledge to testify to? We hold people accountable for their testimony, for their commercial speech, but not their political, academic, and scientific speech (matters of the commons).

So when engaged in Public Speech TO the Public (not talking with friends or family where signaling is a necessary contribution to the internal trust economy ), especially for personal, commercial, political gain you can’t make false or ir-reciprocal statements in matters of the commons (economics, politics, law, science). This law will criminalize political correctness and the pseudosciences the way we have criminalized related kinds of commercial, medical, and legal speech.

Politicians, academics, public intellectuals, reporters – the entire gossip profession, would have to warranty the truthfulness (scientific), operationality, and reciprocity of their speech, and could not advocate for ir-reciprocity (theft) using falsehoods (fraud), especially as a group (conspiracy). Only Trades.

The reason is that the government can only apply violence.

The only non-violent means of cooperation is TRADE.

Now, what does this mean in practice?

It means that there are three common-sense tests:

1. Are you making a truth claim (“is”), advocating for political coercion (“good”), expressing an opinion (should), or venting in frustration(nonsense)?
   .
2. Are you advocating for reciprocity (exchange), an investment (returns), a restitution (proportionality), or a coercion (redistribution), a corruption (rents and rent-seeking), a taking (theft), or a harm (war, injury, or death)?
   .
3. Are you speaking in operational language – a sequence of actions stating the HOW and accounting for the COSTS to all involved – demonstrating you possess the knowledge to make the claim, or using GSRRM (shaming, psychologizing moralizing), Sophism, Idealism, Pseudoscience, or Supernaturalism to obscure the fact that you either lack the knowledge and understanding you claim or are engaging in deceit?

In scientific terms that means is what you’re saying Logical, Empirical, Possible, Rational, Reciprocal, Fully Accounted, and Transparent?  (Operational language provides both possibility and transparency).

In legal terms it’s just a tiny bit more precise, and not really necessary for ordinary people to understand: Have you performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit by testes of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity in rational choice, fully accounted for cause and consequence in within stated limits,  and reversibility and capacity for restitution if you’re wrong?

It didn’t matter when all we could do is write letters and conduct arguments, or when books were costly, but the industrialization of information by mass media has made it possible to conduct organized lying on a massive scale not possible since the invention of the monotheistic religions, distributed by Roman roads.

Marxism was pseudoscience sophism and wishful thinking.  Feminism is an experiment in irreciprocity, and postmodernism is simply lying on a civilizational scale. it is as disastrous to modernity as Christianity and Islam were to antiquity.

In this sense, we have freedom of speech to speak the truth. We do not have freedom of speech to engage in criminal activity under the cover of freedom of speech.

And that is exactly how the Enemy operates as organized crime:  Proportionality without Reciprocity,  under the industrialization of lying, using the false promise of the possibility of equality.

Equality or life after death. No difference. False promise after death. False promise prior to death. False promise either way.

PHILOSOPHY IS CLOSED / HIERARCHY 

The demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete.

Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice.

The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice.

In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.

The Continuation of The European Civilizational Arc

The Western Indo Europeans were fighting submission to nature in every aspect of the social order: nature(technology), family, polity, and religion. They invented the Agency of Man. The application of mastery of metallurgy, the horse, the wheel and war to all aspects of human experience.
Aristotle was fighting ignorance in all the disciplines – including religion, custom, and politics. He invented Empiricism: the transfer of testimony in a court of peers to all aspects of human experience.

Galileo was fighting supernaturalism and denial in the physical sciences: physics, chemistry, biology. He was the principle advocate of Science: The restoration of testimony using mathematics in court a court of peers to all aspects of life.

Darwin was fighting supernaturalism in the biological sciences. He was the principle advocate of realism and naturalism in biology: the restoration of naturalism in biological and social sciences.

We are fighting pseudoscience and sophism and denial in the human sciences: language, psychology, sociology, politics, and group strategy: The completion of social science: The application of testimony using the measurement of reciprocity.