Thread by @curtdoolittle

VERY IMPORTANT: RE: continuous recursive disambiguation (with continually additive information).
1 of 8. Given the evolution of wayfinding into reasoning, and into speech. Where the logic of that wayfinding, reasoning and speaking consists of continuous recursive disambiguation.

2/8. Recursion requires additive information. So in the liar's Paradox "[everything in this box is false]" is recursive w/o adding info - a violation of grammar: a self-contradiction. This is why set logic fails and operational logic succeeds. (and why sets are used to deceive).

3/8 This is the same reason non-contradiction fails in the logics, right through the analytic movement: words, phrases, statements, sentences don't mean things, people do:they can err in grammatical construction, presumption, description,and assertion, they can bias, or decieve.

4/8. So in law we are not 'fooled' by the greco, roman, germanic, anglo tradition that we're detecting truth and falsehood. Instead, in P-Method, P-Logic, and P-Law we're detecting ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, deceit ... and CRIME.

5/8. Where crime includes failure of due diligence.
And just as Philosophy takes away the pretense of irresponsibility from Theology - Testimony (Science of Law) takes away the pretense of irresponsibility from Philosophy.

6/8. And that pretense has provided an incentive to deceive for 1000s of years, from huckers, to sophists, to 'philosophers', to pseudoscientists to theologians, to criminals of every type.

7/8. So again, Babbage failed to systematize, We got Turing. Even Chomsky didn't understand his interpretation of Turing. Wo we have almost two centuries of failure, and the collapse of the philosophical program into regurgitation making no progress until now.

8/8. Closing: why this occurs to me now, is simply that I'm writing the methodology down in steps, and working through converting a sequence of claims, to proper grammar and the