THE FORMAT OF POSTS – A STYLE GUIDE
1 – A POST
THIS TITLE MEANS I WROTE IT FOR YOU TO READ AS AN ARGUMENT
(this cues you to important stuff)
And this is the body text here.
Particularly if I break it into paragraphs.
––“this is quoting someone else”––
—this is quoting myself—
… … is a
… … … series that you might want to learn.
|SERIES|: This > Is > A > Dimensional > Definition
And more text goes here. Subheadings cue you to the content.
I use the signature line for myself. So that I can search for the posts I want to publish on my web site later. So they are sort of a ‘stamp of approval’.
2 – A NOTE OR SKETCH
this doesn’t have header, isn’t broken into paragraphs, and doesn’t even use init-caps, so it’s just a record from elsewhere or quick thought or observation, or a work in progress – rumination.
3 – A PERSONAL OPINION
(this doesn’t have a header, is in parenthesis and in all lower case, which means it’s possibly something to ignore … because it’s not an argument. it’s just an opinion or feeling.)
4 – A DIARY ENTRY
this is something I wrote for myself that is unfiltered, and likely includes very personal feelings of my own, or on the state of my thinking, and not something that you will probably want to read unless the psychology that I operate under is of some interest to you or other.
5 — ON STYLE
Karl Popper created (from aristotle, weber, and pareto) the method of analytic philosophy I make use of, which includes Definitions, Series, Lists, Tables, and parentheticals. He used italics a lot but italics aren’t available in FB or I would us Italics where I use Initial Capitals to denote the name of a definition in a series I have defined elsewhere.
Bold to allow for those of us who read quickly to scan by keywords.
German Capitals: for names of Ideas, like “Rationalism”, “Sovereignty”, “Propertarianism”, or Neologisms, or to alert you to disambiguation (redefinitions).
Parentheticals “(…)”: to bridge operational(technical) and meaningful(familiar) terms, or to limit interpretation. I try to use parentheticals to create parallel sequences between vernacular terminology and technical terminology, or to insert my ‘voice or opinion’ into the middle of an objective text.
Series and Lists : a sequence of definitions representing a spectrum of terms. The use of series deflates, increases precision, and defeats conflation. First exposure to the methodology’s use and repetition of series tends to both be the most obvious and most helpful of the techniques.
Constructions : tracing the path of the development of ideas from primitive to current constructions.
Algorithms : general processes for the construction of deflations.
– Analytic Philosophy is, of necessity, WORDY.
– Operational Language is, of necessity, WORDY.
– Programming Algorithms is, of necessity, WORDY.
– Law, whether Contractual, Legislative, or Constitutional, is WORDY.
– Algorithmic Natural Law is of necessity, WORDY.
Technical Languages evolve to speak precisely. Precise language contains technical terms and is wordy. Why, if all the other sciences require technical language, would we think that speaking technically in the science of cooperation is not going to be wordy?
Well, it’s going to be wordy.
6 – “WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ‘USING PARENTHETICALS’?”
The use of parenthesis (parentheticals) to carry on (communicate) related (parallel) meanings (definitions) so that we both (simultaneously) convey meaning (free association), but at the same time prevent misinterpretation (provide limits).
In other words we can carry on via positiva and via negativa in the same paragraph or sentence. Or that we may use colloquial verse, but include technical terms. It’s profoundly effective.
If you read Popper’s work he uses italics (which was criticized at the time) for similar purposes.
IMHO parentheticals solve the problem of choosing latin prose consisting of long sentences, consisting of many related phrases (which Claire Rae Randall has brought up recently), or separating two sides of an argument into separate paragraphs.
Latin prose tends to be poetic in order to prevent judgment until later phrases emerge (lincoln’s gettysburg address). This becomes increasingly difficult as we speak in increasingly technical terms.
So my opinion is that the parenthetical technique is evolving as our grammatical solution to conceptual density in technical matters, where we can more easily communicate such concepts without burdening and confusing the audience with ‘hanging incomplete ideas’ (separate paragraphs), or too many hanging incomplete ideas (many phrases), by simply limiting each positive concept as its being used (via parentheticals).
But the operational definition would be to provide both meanings in common prose and limits in parentheticals or the reverse: provide precise terms in prose, and common examples in parenthesis, in the same sentence structure.
Now if you read Frank’s comments on other’s posts, at all you’ll see him do both Precise/Example, and Common/Technical at the same time.
This turns out to be what I suggest, is an almost perfect grammar. Or rather, the next evolution of grammar as we increase informaitonal density.
Because like the common law, it ‘corrects’ or ‘informs’ you immediately without requiring that you hold multiple dense contexts in your head until they are later resolved in the text.
My opinion, taken from Greg Bear, is that if we could talk and show flashes of images at the same time – say on our phones, or floating above our heads – then the combination of words (precision) and examples (Images) would create nearly perfect communication.
WRITING IN PARENTHETICALS, SERIES, AND AXES
I learned the technique of writing with series(sequences) and parenthetic parallels(like this) from Karl Popper (Critical Rationalism). And it was his adoption and use of of series rather than sets that distinguished Popper from the Analytic school. I did not understand originally what was superior about his approach to analytic philosophy, but I understood he had improved upon it. I only understood that he had identified that science was critical not justificationary (like morality and law), and that along with Hayek they were the first to grasp that social science like physical science, must be modeled as a problem of information, not an analogistic model from of prior generations(electricity, steam, water, mechanicals) – just as I understand our problem today is an artifact of industrialization and the attempt to manufacture identical units rather than ‘grow’ a portfolio of the best humans.
Later I came to understand that both parenthetic parallels, series, and relations between axis (think supply demand curves), provided tests of the NECESSITY of meaning, rather than NORMATIVE or COLLOQUIAL meaning. In other words, they limit the reader (and the author) from mal-attribution of properties that occur in normative and colloquial, and particular, and ‘ignorant’ speech.
I work in public, partly to conduct experiments. I am personally open in public because this prevents people attributing psychological motivations to me that I don’t have. I create conflict in order to run tests. The purpose of running a test is to attempt to create a proof.
The Propertarian Institute