Wednesday, December 06, 2017

The Integrity of Honesty → The Integrity of Responsibility



The Integrity of Honesty
The Integrity of Responsibility

"If the laws are going down the wrong road, we are all going down the wrong road, and they are! We need to change paths".

Men and women are not naturally constituted of the most righteous of base thoughts and ideas. We are too much an easily fallible species, seldom strong, and more often of weak sentiments, interpreters and intellects. How may we rectify this? ----- Oh that we could speak like this:

“The means by which national exigencies are to be provided for, national inconveniences obviated, national prosperity promoted, are of such infinite variety, extent, and complexity, that there must of necessity be great latitude of discretion in the selection and application of those means. Hence, consequently, the necessity and propriety of exercising the authorities intrusted to a government on principles of liberal construction”. Alexander Hamilton

Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, John Shook on James Feibleman


Feibleman’s system reflects his belief that “the purpose of a philosophy … is to find the nature of the universe of all universes while at the same time saving the facts, to account for every type of detail in the world as well as to seek out reasons for the very existence of such detail. A philosophy is a scale-model of all that we can describe from our experience or imagine, a model based on an ontological system.” He viewed ontology as “the most important branch of philosophy”, and his own ontology as the foundation of his system… Feibleman set forth his ontological theory, which he called axiologic realism, in his near 800 page magnum opus Ontology (1951). That work culminates in a list of 599 “postulates” of axiologic realism, systematically arranged in a way that recalls Spinoza’s Ethics and Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. Only the barest sketch of that system can be given here.

The central claim of axiologic realism is that there are only three fundamental categories or ontological universes: (1) essence or possibility, (2) existence or actuality, and (3) destiny or teleology. Feibleman describes essence or possibility along the lines of Plato’s Sophist, as “the power to affect or be affected.” The universe of essence thus consists of “the total of all items having the power to affect or to be affected taken together.” It is “a universe of pure being” … governed by determination and law” (1951). It is also the realm of both universals and values; thus, Feibleman’s ontology commits him to realism about universals (in other words, a “realism” in the sense in which it is opposed to nominalism) and to realism about values (hence the name “axiologic realism”).

The Self-Sovereign Moral Self:

"Morality, to me, is as I see others, morally see me and my actions, in relation to theirs -- It's a lived and learned experienced dynamics of truth, trust, fair-mindedness and honesty, from childhood up". 


"The values-conflation problem is the world’s greatest problem, we must straighten out”.

A Systematic Presentation of Peirce's Ethics, James Feibleman

"Morality insists that a motive is either good or bad. That the gulf between them is bridged over and that most motives are somewhere near the middle of the bridge, is quite contrary to the teachings of any moral system which ever lived in the hearts and consciences of a people" "The very simplest and most rudimentary of all conceivable systems of quantity is that one which distinguishes only two values. This is the system of evaluation which ethics applies to actions in dividing them into the right and the wrong" Morality, as the application of ethical principles to conduct, must be an affair of approaching more or less closely to but not of attaining absolute limits. Thus it requires a many-valued system and not merely a two-valued one. "The rule of ethics will be to adhere to the only possible absolute aim, and to hope that it will prove attainable. Meantime, it is comforting to know that all experience is favorable to that assumption" C.P.

In my own summation: 

Values are the most important universal Zeitgeist agency on earth; where, The moral self grounds in itself; the ethical grounds in self and law; and the rational scientific grounds in self and earth – 3 independent groundings. Morality is the automatic actions created between our essence and the mind’s noumenal agents, “self-auto-creating our esthetic judgment noumena and morality” from experiences, interpretive-interpretant noumenal agents (percepts) and our bio-noumenal essence potential, interactions. (The “thing in itself”, exposed)  (Simply put -- My essence can ground itself, no other way). 
(copyrighted - all rights reserved - lloyd.gillespie@gmail.com )

A Question of Limits — System Costs…
E = 1/5 X — A 1/5 Division of Global Exchanges Creates Perfect Competition…

A warning: You will understand none of this without abandoning conventional thinking, and adopting a theoretical stance of non-conventional thinking.

What are system costs? They are the costs it requires us to run capitalism beyond its natural state costs. What is capitalism’s natural state? That’s a rather difficult question and should be better phrased as; “What would be capitalism’s best natural operating state?” Now, that’s more answerable. Capitalism’s best natural operating state should be a state of pure equilibrium of global prices and resources according to contained value of each resource and product. O.K., but that poses a further problem when all nations have different amounts of individual resources and populations, how would we ever achieve pure equilibrium? I could see writing new dynamic laws to equilibrate prices, but not resources and populations. Wait a minute, we could also write dynamic sliding time scaled ratio-balancing laws to even balance out unequal resources and populations per GDP’s, as long as all currencies are also dynamically sliding time scale balanced to all internal and external prices and resources to GDP ratios. Such ideas must always respect the core necessities of incentives, supply and demand not be disturbed.

Now, let’s get back to the initial question — What are system costs? Since a perfect state of capitalism would be a pure and true equilibrium state of global prices and resources, system costs would be the costs incurred by and beyond any initial state balance into imbalances in prices and resources from its initial pure state model, and these costs would be proportional in a direct ratio to such imbalances, i.e., the further capitalism became imbalanced to its initial pure state balance of prices and resources, the higher the excess system costs would become, of running such a system. That’s a pretty straight-forward probability matrix, is it not? So, why all the problem of global political-economics, of the present imbalances and excessive costs, being laid back on the many by the few? Is it a problem of education? Is it improper education or possibly a learning disability? Are we all intellectually dyslexic? What gives here, when the problem seems so simple to solve? Have we not ever tried to solve the real problem of “excess system costs”?

It seems this is the problem. We have never even entertained the question about the problem of “excess capitalist system costs”. Why? I don’t know. Is it possible no-one has ever thought of posing the simple question? Quite possible, as it easily seems to answer it-self as soon as it’s posed.

How exactly are excess system costs/debts incurred, above normal market debts? Global computerized speculation has excessively imbalanced markets; therefore, global computerized arbitrage is now required to rebalance markets. Since excess computerized speculation (all speculative short and long positions combined) exceeds natural market arbitrage, written law computerized arbitrage must now be instituted to even begin to rebalance global markets. Natural market arbitrage falls far short of what is required to naturally rebalance markets. These inertial market changes have taken place so subtle over the last several decades, we simply haven’t noticed the massive growing imbalance’s true causes, as most do not understand computerized speculation and arbitrage dynamics for the imbalancing damage it’s truly doing, when these two necessary market states are out of balance as severe as this state of affairs has become. The laws of nations must change to better govern the speculation-arbitrage dynamics of modern computerized supply and demand.

How can excess system costs be resolved autonomously? 7 new systems of laws must be emplaced to solve our excess system costs problem autonomously:
1. Honest mandated specialty education.
2. External exchange clearing.
3. Internal exchange clearing.
4. A new triply entry “Bank of the U.S.” under Treasury control.
5. A P.X. leisure age employment stabilization system.
6. Computerized rebalance arbitraging against excess speculation.
7. New dynamic sliding time scaled laws instituting all systems.

Are both external and internal exchange clearing required? Yes. The entire system will be governed by a new dynamic incentive law system. External exchange clearing will be instituted to handle the excess derivatives and foreign exchange speculations, where all transactions will pass through either its computerized monitoring section or its live people (specially mandated educated) governed board of directors. All foreign transaction must be processed through this new clearing system, for global balance of payments, currencies and prices rebalancing processes. This will be instituted by such suggested new laws as per Paul Davidson, or Keynes’ older “bancor” and international bank clearing system, also much the same as Plato 1st suggested millennia ago. This system will be a best practices combination of all three. (see reference links below)(must also include all Keynes’ inter-governmental papers ideas about bancor, mainly in Skidelsky)

What are the major elements of internal exchange clearing? Internal exchange clearing is a dynamic incentive law structure, consisting of a 1/5 P.X. social contract paradigm change, a new triple entry banking system with an autonomous self-managing printing press — Only — when the entire system of laws and institutional changes are fully implemented. The system is an 80%/20% inverse wage social contract eco-legal and banking system — Completely Marketized — As a national Or global capitalist system. The P.X. is then capable of functioning as a crude-printed public works system — Instituted — Only — after complete social contract overhaul — Top to bottom. The 1% to 20% P.X. is a total dynamic pricing mechanism of all commodities, goods and services — Within This Sector Only — Designed to prevent inflation and reflate deflationary periods, if ever necessary, and with all official exchange markets left untouched. The manufacturing sector of this system will have total quality control laws to prevent junk inflation — Legally computer monitored, with strict legal enforcement of the total structure. The entire structure is designed to create a price-downward pricing mechanism, which dynamically prevents unwanted inflation, yet can also be used for fast emergency reflations.

Internal exchange clearing is a total solution. We claim “Internal Exchange Clearing” is the only feasible answer for the future — The final answer to most all of our financial problems. It is a system offering an all-encompassing solution to most national and international problems and conflicts. This is a monetary system proposal to rebuild America and the entire world — A scientifically quantifiably provable system, with math, graphs and counterfactual logics. We claim this to be an answer to everyone’s wishes — from environmentalists to financial tycoons — All are satisfied by “Internal Exchange Clearing”, as it has the rare ability to solve such massive problems, from the environment to science, technology and high-finance.

How does triple entry banking function? This will be an entirely new “Bank of The U.S.” legally instituted as a public enterprise bank, as per Hamilton’s first “Bank of The U.S”, fully separate from the existing FED, even though it can be run out of the same buildings, with new law mandates. Triple entry banking is simply negative reserve banking, governed by its own new set of laws and management. Triple entry banking is an entirely new expansion of the existing banking system, allowing the nation to move from national debt obligation, to national debt sovereignty. It’s a banking system balanced on world transactions ratios to national debt levels, with complete computerized oversight and semi-philanthropic management. It is a monetized debt system of triple entry banking — dynamically adjusting percentage wise, debt to GNP, amongst participating nations. Of the 100% to 80% free market to the 1% to 20% dynamically price-semi-managed market, only the 100% to 80% free market needs repayment. The 1% to 20% dynamically semi-managed semi-philanthropic market needs no repayment; but — Only — After full system implementation, and this point can-not be stressed enough — Only — After full system implementation. Every piece of the entire system must be in place — First. (see reference links below)

How does triple entry banking accomplish being a self-managed printing press? The 80%/20% market law structure’s J-curve actions automatically control all inflation, deflation, exchange rates and competition, etc., upon full implementation. The entire 1/5 P.X. market dynamics automatically self-autonomizes the entire system within reasonable financial bounds, through its dual-action supply and demand dynamics between the two percentage systems. These dynamically semi-managed prices automatically supply and demand balance exchanges, inflation, wages and debt ratios, etc. — The entire system through. The whole systems’ dynamics are fully quantifiable by the simple formula of E = 1/5 X, clear concepts and graph mechanics’ logic.

How does the P.X. leisure age labor stabilizer function? This involves placing the public sector P.X. labor market stabilizer in a dual-mode supply and demand competition with the existing free-enterprise sector of the economy — One semi-managed and one free as it presently is. The semi-managed P.X. is a 1% to 20% maximum sequester of all means of resources, goods, services and production, to be sequestered only as the evolution of the 100% to 80% free-enterprise side of the economy closes outdated and outmoded businesses, companies and corporations, through its natural economic attrition processes, unless emergency economic mechanics and conditions mandates a necessary acceleration of more full institution, even to the high emergency level of 20%, its maximum public support limit of dynamic mechanics — Which must be used if a full blown global depression befalls us all, before institution of this new capitalist system is legally emplaced and functioning. Digital technologies, computers, formal functioning databases and industrial robotics, continued labor market share, will clearly warrant this implementation, sometime in the near future. This new market system will require an extensive law system to fully institute. This will be the largest and most complex law system of all 7 offered, and much of the market moves by authorities will require full secrecy, not to alert speculators to such windfall opportunities. Varied implementation scenarios can easily be applied, secretly.

How are derivatives markets resolved? The derivatives problem will be resolved through a computerized oversight by the historically well-known yet never instituted external exchange clearing. Derivatives, being the most complex of all capitalism’s market transactions must be carefully and thoughtfully managed, not to disturb the necessary international financial transactions, already in play — This is of extreme importance and interest to the international bankers and major corporations involved, and the entire system is designed not to upset these special interests, but actually compliment their needs, as any form of capitalism can survive by no other method. Even though Warren Buffet called them “financial weapons of mass destruction” he forgot to offer any real world solution, which “Internal Exchange Clearing” does offer, and that is proper monitoring and assistance until global prices and currencies can be fully and truly rebalanced, which will completely reduce the dangers and damages this market has on the real world, even though it presently acts as a real global insurance risk policy for all major international banks and corporations, even if highly flawed. Direct law on derivatives is not the best practice method available to deal with them. Fixing the underlying structural laws and market prices, back to true ppp’s (real purchasing price parities) is the best method, thus automatically solving and dissolving the derivatives problems over enough time — Safely — for all involved, and even to us mere citizens’ joy.

How is debt resolved? Debt is easily resolved through the dynamics set in play by all external and internal exchange clearing, banking and P.X. being fully instituted and implemented. All public debts — Public Debts Only — over enough time, can be fully monetized with no inflationary damage to this powerful system of self-autonomous dynamics. Debt monetization is recommended to take place in exact ratio to implementation percentages, from the 1% to 20% maximum level, as deemed necessary according to real world conditions and needs — This would be to increase debt monetization the same corresponding percentage increases of entire system institution and implementation ratios — This is not set in stone, but only a best recommended scenario of real debt reduction. It may take you some extra time to wrap your conventional mind/brain around this idea, requiring new and expanded highly theoretical thinking, with fully unconventional and totally new theoretic thinking, as we pre-warned at the head of this paper.

How is inflation resolved? The inflation dynamics is a bit more complex to explain than the deflation mechanics below, but basically it’s when the overall dynamic mechanics of the entire system is fully implemented, and as already mentioned above, it becomes a very dynamic dual-purpose and action supply and demand system, with the new P.X. market able to work its downward pricing mechanics on the upward pricing mechanics of the totally free-enterprise side of the economy, thus halting inflation in its tracks, when deemed too costly to the system. This semi-managed dynamic pricing P.X. will be controlled by very strict enforcement of its law structure, to prevent what could easily become an extremely corrupt system, if not done so. This is the major reason this part of the system is so crucial to being properly legally controlled, having stiff penalties for moral and ethical violations of its managers and participants. As long as everyone stays honest, and we can see no reason why they really wouldn’t want to be honest in such an efficient and moral system, as violations should be punishable by ostracization from the awesome benefits of the system, and we feel most people are wise enough not to cut their own throats that bad.

How is deflation resolved? Due to the safeguards of the above 7 systems emplaced, the new triple entry banking system can safely actually crude print, if necessary, and the 20% P.X. labor system can hire all workers laid off in the 80% free enterprise side of the entire system. The entire system mechanics can even create, afford and tolerate a 10% to 15% growth rate per year, without incurring dangerous inflation. All is needed to do is to bump up the dynamics of the sliding time scaled mechanisms’ laws, to its highest efficiency levels, easily employing all who wish to have a real job, even if it’s a leisure-age job of doing one’s own hobby, for a decent wage. The system is capable of creating new jobs at any rates that may be required to revive proper and full employment, thus ending any deflation, unwanted, plus avoiding the looming problems of digital technologies, computers, formal databases and robots further de-employing capitalism.

Is autonomous action best, or is universal action best? Universal action is best, but either will work. We suspect unilateral autonomous action will be the route necessary to take, but once known, any nation can be the first to take unilateral action. I suspect China or Russia just may be the first, unless we act first. Even if they do act first, it’s still no problem for us to act second or later, as “Internal Exchange Clearing” is that capable a system of capitalist revival from the dead.

How is political action achieved? Local political action is best achieved by education — Education first of all for the economists needed to educate the political scientists, other economists and politicians, and finally mandatory academic logic, math and economic courses meriting their metal of thought, comparable to our present real world needs for this system’s integration and operations.

These ideas should be further clarified, simplified and fully understood by as large a group of knowledgeable economists as possible by distributing this work as widely as possible amongst them and others. We ask for the help of as many economists, historians, mathematicians, physicists, chemists, biologists and logicians as we may possibly attract, as we feel the fast approaching robotic de-employment of capitalism is a very close reality, with its far more than presently thought, rapid spread, making time of a primary essence. We feel it best to pre-implement before a real and dangerous financial collapse is fully upon us, even though this system has the power to raise the entire capitalist system, even from the dead extreme liquidity trap it most certainly will face, some time out into the future, with all the increase of debts, trouble-spots and de-employments by robots and other techs, we see upon the horizon. This is just a message to be persuaded to heed. It is not a dire warning, but it could easily become one.

How is international political cooperation achieved? In the existing climate of non-international cooperation, education is our best foot forward. Next would be to institute the system unilaterally, as it is capable of autonomously functioning completely unilaterally, independently. If any nation were to do so, other nations would most likely competition-wise need to follow suit, as the efficiencies would be irresistible, not to do so, as they’d be so economically punishing. Another method of achievement would be to simply realize a very similar system is already functioning globally at present, by way of China’s mercantilist practices of its manipulated low value currency and market system actually presently clearing all capitalist world exchanges of inflation, by its low export prices, due to its highly undervalued labor arbitrage forces upon the existing capitalist system. One only needs to look to see these facts. If China were to implement first, then the rest of the world would be forced by competition to copy. It’s really that simple.

Are there limits to credit/debt expansion? Yes. In general terms, the limit of credit/debt expansion would be; “Nations can only print until the costs of repayment of debts exceed the limits of the printing press gains”. In other words, nations can never exceed the pay-back abilities of total costs, where excess printing only destroys the economy with capital flight and hyper-inflation, as that’s the guaranteed limit of any nation exceeding its limit of repayment abilities. This number is always dynamic and must be figured according to the total data of the date figured. The IMF, World Bank, Bank of International Settlements, Clearing House of International Payments System, Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury, Comptroller of Currency and The Congressional Office of Management and Budget can all be consulted for the numbers needed. The CIA World Fact Book is also highly useful, for quick global facts.

We kindly request help from as many professionals as may offer.

References:

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Actionable Ideas:

Actionable Ideas:
1st This is the philosopher I follow most; C.S. Peirce, bar none. No matter how many times I read the more recent others, their own writings always refer back to something more basic in Peirce 

Imo, Peirce is still the most complete and factually useful philosopher of all history’s philosophers, especially and mainly since he’s a logician as well as a scientist in many other fields, including the complex maths. I find more methods and methodologies what philosophy is truly about - in Peirce than all the others put together, since he single-handedly created more of his own than any ‘one’ other, and also studied, recorded and used theirs as well, while giving full credit to them all, making him the most complete index of the wisest men on Earth. So, if you want tools for investigation of ideas, it’s impossible to top Peirce in toto, imo.

My Basic Methods Synopsis: 

I seriously don’t think we can do successful science of philosophy, philosophy of science, or even a lot of philosophy proper, without a sound methodological category articulation, definition and model system, to begin with -- Thus, I advocate using Peirce’s system of many systems, as the best, and most useful modern system interpretation of methodological category articulation, definition and model philosophy possible -- It’s imo, the most complete architectonic philosophical system of noumenal-epistemic-ontolic-phenomenolic-physics and science, that exists -- Why…? Because; It covers every subject under the sun -- including the 1st philosophy of metaphysics, as a general 1st descriptor of ideas…

I’ll start with a provocative “title-assertion” and a more serious quote, then state what philosophy means to me, and generally how I use it.

A Question of Philosophical-Political Involvement: - “Is there a way not to become polarized, if you enter this Deep State Cave…?” (As I see all who enter, are polar brainwashed into its many wrong-headed preceptions, ideologies and dogmas)

C.S. Peirce says: Quote:
 “The elements of every concept enter into logical thought at the gate
 of PERCEPTION and make their exit at the gate of PURPOSIVE ACTION;
 and whatever cannot show its passports at both those two gates
 is to be ARRESTED as unauthorized by REASON.”

(Peirce’s quote is a general finite logical scientific language editor, to edit the wheat from the chaff. I don’t think any successful philosophy can be done, without doing this - 1st, especially as to basic definitions and meanings.)

Now; “What does philosophy mean to me?” I’ve worked all my life with a single goal in mind - To develop ideas and systems worthy of the possibility of changing the laws of the nation and possibly even the world - where needs be, to be more amenable to the yearnings of myself; and to those of other people. So, I asked myself; “What was my initial essential question?” 

And that was; Where was I to find the exact information I would need to accomplish my goals, in this massive Universal mountain of information? -- My grandfather had years before suggested - Money, Law & Logic were key - but, where was I to accurately find all this information I was seeking? After thinking, asking, investigating and long years of studies, I realized philosophy offered the areas, with the most basic, deep, and far-reaching, information I was looking for.

Then the quest began in earnest - slogging through the many, many philosophers, historians, logicians, lawyers, scientists, mathematicians and economists, I finally found all the fundamental answers I was initially looking for about money, law, logic and mathematics - and just exactly how philosophy was needed to explain it all successfully. That took a solid twenty years, plus another twenty years filtering that massive mountain of thoughts and ideas into facts and proofs, I could be satisfied with. I found most of the information in the many histories of philosophy I studied, so the respect I have for it is huge, even though my attitude can be less than desired, at times, please take me with a grain of salt.

To me, philosophy is a means to an end - an end (meaning effects/conclusions) of an idea - an end (solution) of a problem - application to the solution to the ends of history, per say - solutions to the historical, political, legal and economic problems of Earth (past, present and future, triadically teleologically analyzed) - or just plain ol’ general methods and methodologies applied to all sorts of (Quote:) “finite understanding” realities. Now, notice I’ve quoted and italicized the “finite understanding”, as I don’t intend to mean this applies to any of the private “talismanic language uses”, as per the many mythic, mystic and boutique languages available to non-scientists - As I mean this to apply to the finite scientific understanding only, the only understanding I accept as valid. (holler all you want) I purposely limit it to the “finite understanding”, as this is what the logic, maths and measurements of philosophy and science have taught me to do, and the main idea I like most about philosophy is its offering of such powerful tools for the careful and precise discrimination of essential and intelligent thought, in all areas of thought, and when properly and fully applied, give amazing factual and proof results, in the fields the tools are accurately applied to, as far as I’m concerned. Historically, when fully used, “I” find nothing missing. I know others will strongly disagree with this.

A Quoted Question: "Is a grand unified theory of information possible?"
Imo, If you were to simply choose to build this already mentioned, powerful finite language clarification editor quote of Charles Sanders Peirce, into your own full-blown conceptual, logical, finite quantification, path grounding system, I have no doubt, you could create the most true, honest and accurate personal self-interpreter possible -- That's how important I feel it is; AGAIN, QUOTE: “The elements of every concept enter into logical thought at the gate of PERCEPTION and make their exit at the gate of PURPOSIVE ACTION; and whatever cannot show its passports at both those two gates is to be ARRESTED as unauthorized by REASON...” 

Imo, nothing of philosophy, humanism and/or science is more analytically important and useful...

Finally: A general analyses of the possible and impossible separations, integrations and uses of all of these mentioned methods, used by way of the editing methods also mentioned above, should go a long way toward greatly assisting in the creation and institution of new ideas and possible methods of creating new laws to resolve some of the major problems facing our world, today, when fully integrated with the scientific methods and methodologies philosophy truly offers, if people would but pay close attention, to the exactness she offers. Imo; “We can’t just waddle out our ideas without having full and complete methods of achieving our goals of the real political, legal and social changes so sorely needed…”

 I simply ask; Please use many methods of deep thought, before you choose any serious actions. And, that’s what philosophy, in a short note, truly means to me”. Thank you. 


The End
Inline image 1

Some of the world’s ‘best’ universal/international, aggregate logical minds this author owes a great debt to __ Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Archytas, Eudoxus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Archimedes, Cicero, Seneca, Boethius, Ibn Al-HaythamAl-Biruni, Ibn Sina, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Jean Buridan, Nicholas De Cusa, Juan Vives, John Wallis, Francis Bacon, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Baruch Spinoza, Christiaan Huygens, Hugo Grotius, John Locke, Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibnitz, Thomas Reid, Alexander Baumgarten, Moses Mendelssohn, Immanuel Kant, George Washington, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, Giambattista Vico, Bernard Bolzano, Tom Paine, Évariste Galois, William Whewell, Auguste Comte, J.C. Bose, S.W. Hamilton, W.R. Hamilton, George Boole, Augustus  De Morgan, William K. Clifford, Alexander Bain, William Stanley Jevons, R.H. Lotze, Charles S. Peirce, Thorsten Veblen, William Minto, Mark Twain, Christine Ladd-Franklin, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac, Max H. Fisch, S.N. Bose, Jan Lukasiewicz, J.M. Keynes, Arthur Prior, Kurt GÖdel, Mikhail Bakhtin, Clarence I. Lewis, Alfred Tarski, John Wheeler, Joseph Ransdell, Roderick Chisholm, Nathan Houser, Patrick Coppock, Phyllis Chiasson, Herbert Feigl, Hans Jonas, Peter McLaughlin, Nicholas Rescher, Jay Zeman, James R. Wible, John F. Sowa, K.O. Apel, Irving Anellis, Sami Paavola, T.L. Short, Joseph Brent, Fernando Zalamea, Ahti Pietarinen, Susan Haack, Albert Casullo, Joseph L. Esposito, Theodora Achourioti, and Igor Naletov, Daniel Andler, Maria Chiara, Giorgio Agamben, Lucianno Floridi, etc.…(just a short list)

The Triadic Maxim___Any Idea; “Arithmetically check all possible effects, against all possibles of premises, and the combined results will be the total actions of the idea.”

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Understanding:

As I approach the understanding of myself and others, I must ask myself what I truly and honestly know. Do I know myself well enough to know others, or am I deluding myself more than I may even realize? How many of us truly do know ourselves as well as we think or may guess we do? I think I know myself, but I still sometimes have nagging doubts about the truths being known, so my best effort is to speak of what I’m more sure of, and that’s certain facts of the world I’m far more sure of than self-knowledge of my personal experiences. Still, there are moments and sometimes long periods of time I seem to be fully aware of clearly knowing myself; but, the old demon of self-doubt arises, and I must reassess. How many times have we all done this? I’d say many; but seriously, I don’t know, as I truly can’t know what’s in other people’s minds, even when most tell me, as my interpreter may not be the same as others, and more often than not, I’m sure our interpreters are quite different, more often than the same. Does this sound honest, or am I deluding myself again?

I’ve often wondered why so many people do not see the same world I seem to be seeing, and to me, it’s in more recent years come down to some boundary conditions between varying category interpretation/s, or boundary states between meanings and interpretations, fundamentally, that’s far too often confusing the issues, whether they be experiences or straight intellectual ideas. Boundary states between each side of my own mind often do not match each’s truth systems and facts, so how could I expect anyone else’s to be any different, but I’m never sure how much others are aware of this mismatch between fundamental experiential feelings, morals and physical experiences on one side of my brain, and logic, ethics, reason and intellect on the other side. I’m almost sure others must have sensed this at times, but I’ve never had anyone admit it, and I know this to be true since being a moderator on certain physics forum sites, in the past, and speaking to others about it. The women seemed to express great concern when I mentioned that my own mind’s two sides, feelings and intellect were often in disagreement, within my brain; but, it is simply a natural state to me, and my study for many years has clearly born this out, all the way from the Zen masters, Aristotle’s “squares of oppositions”, Sohravardi’s relational logic, Kant’s antinomies, Peirce’s relational logic to Graham Priest’s “dialetheism”, which all interpret pretty close to my experiences, when considered from the most fundamental natural state of natural logic, or the “logica utens” of natural feelings.

How do we truly and honestly relate, when we all seem to use different word, meanings, and language systems, even within the same language member family, i.e., English? There really isn’t anything wrong with this, except for the fact of how much effort it takes to truly and honestly match varying interpreters; but, that can be a considerable effort, when “what I say may not be what you hear, and what you say may not be what I hear”. That can pose a considerable problem. An example is when America first wandered off course and stumbled into Her massively needless civil war, where so many young souls died, for nothing other than a lack of understanding language and ideas between the North and South, and really being no different than what I’ve often experienced between the two hemispheres of my own mind, shocking as this may sound – Both are nothing more than the misunderstandings of different and varying interpreters. I know this to be true because the extensive study I’ve done throughout my long life clearly showed this boogie-man to bear his ugly teeth every time, many times over, resulting in wars and civil wars, for nothing but the lack of understanding to write better universal laws to true, honest and better values and real justice, to satisfy the contesting sides. This is why I’ve attempted to solve this age-old problem, practically all my life, especially since the 3rd to 7th grade recitals of Abe Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in many different schools, which just happens to be a man who’s values I have always respected extremely highly. Too bad more people couldn’t realize we need those honest values from the Declaration of Independence’ Preamble used to interpret the U. S. Constitution just as Lincoln did for slavery and the Gettysburg funeral oration, and advised be done into the future constitutional interpretations. And, I know it’s an experiential values problem, first and foremost, far more than an abstract problem; but, How do we solve a fundamental values problem all the way from the particular personal to the universal boundary levels, other than taking Lincoln’s advice, in this massively divisive world of severe animosities?

The funny thing is, even if I can solve the internal interpretation problems of these boundary states within myself, and in turn see how to solve the external boundary states of laws, how could I even begin to have a world, or even another person see what my interpreter sees? The complexity of explanation is almost overwhelming, even to me, who’s tried to see this path, just about my entire life. So, would I expect anyone else to have the same interpreter? I think that would be asking too much of even myself, when I know full well, my own mind would cease functioning as a feeling and rational animal, if these two different boundary states were truly not necessarily independent, to correct each other’s false actions. So to me, if they are biologically necessary contraries and contradictions for fundamental values and values systems to be felt and analytically discussed/understood, and rationality and rational systems to be improved, why would I even begin to think the solution were simple? I don’t. It’s highly complex, and I think this fundamental self-co-logical problem of humanity’s existence with her half-twin nature, must first of all be solved, within us all. Only we can do that with deep interpretive self-understanding; and, that’s a lot of work.

Can I conquer myself? Can you conquer yourself? I think we can by talking enough; but, I fear that’s a lot of talking, and it hasn’t ever been done, so far, on this Earth.

Anyone care to attempt this massive task?

Monday, July 18, 2016

PHILOSOPHIC COMMENTS ON THE NEW RESULT: "ABSOLUTIVITY" REPLACING RELATIVITY

PHILOSOPHIC COMMENTS ON THE NEW RESULT: 
"ABSOLUTIVITY" REPLACING RELATIVITY 
Roger Ellman

Science on the large scale, that is science dealing with the fundamentals of reality and the universe, has always had and still has a major effect on the non-scientific - social - general philosophic thinking of that science’s society and its leaders.

The beginning of the scientific method and the work of scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo resulted in the new period of "The Age of Reason" and "The Enlightenment" – rationality and empiricism replacing dogma and faith. 

The new developments that Newton introduced led directly to the concept of the "clockwork universe" and the strong belief in laws, order and regularity. 

And, Einstein’s theory of relativity coupled with the 20th Century’s attribution of actual uncertainty or indeterminism to all physical objects, an extension far beyond the original valid Heisenberg Uncertainty of measurement due to the act of measuring changing the object measured, resulted in our contemporary outlook of a probabilistic reality with no certainty, everything relative with no firm truths, upon which we can lay some of the responsibility for the horrors and tragedies of the 20th Century. 

How is that so ? 

In general, a statement and its contradiction cannot be simultaneously true. Therefore, there are some absolute truths. Thus there is absolute truth, which is the collective body of absolute truths. 

Not all statements are absolute truths. Aside from error, which by definition is not true, there is opinion. For example: 

· Some people state their liking for candy; some their dislike. It is a matter of opinion. 
· But, the statement "Some candy has properties that appeal to some people" is an absolute truth. 

The point of view that the questions, "What is truth ?" and "What is real ?" are meaningless questions without answers is not only incorrect but quite negative and harmful in that it suppresses inquiry and progress that could otherwise take place. 

Truth is that which conforms to and describes reality. Reality is that which is, not only matter and energy in their various forms but also: feelings and emotions, ideas and cultures, languages and arts, and so forth. 

Whether we can know, sense, measure, or understand some aspect of reality or not it still, nevertheless, is.

Its being does not depend on our consent nor our observation nor our understanding of it, nor even our own being. We are not gods. 

The problem is not whether there is absolute truth or not -- there is. The problem is finding out, coming to know, what the absolute truth is, what is true and what is not. Just what is the "real" reality. 

This problem has beset mankind since the earliest stages of the development of our reasoning. It has resulted in a more or less collective decision to grant equal validity to a number of different versions of the truth in spite of their being mutually contradictory. 

Not that individuals, organizations and governments hold the opinion that their own version of the truth is not correct. Rather, they ardently believe in the correctness of their own views. But, their inability to prove their views and their inability to defeat differing or opposing 
views necessitates their getting along in some fashion with those other views and the multiplicity of contradictory views of reality. 


That state of affairs has existed for so many human lifetimes that it has essentially implanted in our collective and individual thinking the incorrect belief that there is no absolute truth, that truth is what we say it is -- especially that truth is what we can enforce it to be. 

We have gone from inability to determine the truth to non-belief in its existence and then to belief that truth, and reality, are whatever we choose to believe them to be and can force on our fellows. 

The most significant characteristic of the 20th Century, other than its explosion of technology, has been its adoption of the attitude that truth is different for each person and each case, that it is what each individual perceives it to be -- that there is no objective reality, only the subjective reality as perceived by each individual -- that all is relative. 

The great damage that such thinking does is the license that it gives. It gives license to create, choose, decide upon one's own "reality" and then act accordingly. Such thinking ultimately gives us war, rapine, holocausts. 

But, if there is an absolute reality, objective truth, then, even if we are not able to completely know and understand it, we are subject to it. We are measured and judged by it; we experience the effects and consequences of it whether we agree and approve or not, and we feel compelled to behave accordingly. 

Thus absolute reality and objective truth, 
which indeed exist, 
also are desirable and beneficial. 
They are, in fact, essential to civilized society.

And, that is the beneficial result of Absolutivity replacing Relativity. 

Saturday, April 16, 2016

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Debtor Nations Need A Financial System That Allows Them to Work Their Way to Prosperity

Paul Davidson Monday December 1, 2003 The Guardian
http://econ.bus.utk.edu/documents/davidsonpapers/guardian1203article.pdf 

The global economy is at a crossroads. We can try to muddle through with the existing defective international financial system, while hoping that minor tinkering will quarantine the devastating depressionary forces experienced by developing nations and avoid contagion spilling over to developed nations. Or we can produce a new financial architecture that not only protects all nations from experiencing the devastation of currency crises but also eliminates the persistent global depressionary pressures of the current system and therefore makes possible the potential of global full employment.

All prudent nations (except the United States) desire a surplus of exports over imports to obtain a net positive financial savings position on their internationally earned income. This surplus is added to the nation's foreign reserves. Since the global economy is on a dollar standard, additions to a nation's foreign reserves are held primarily in the form of US treasuries.

The effect of all nations attempting to accumulate foreign reserves is to create persistent high rates of unemployment, and liquidity problems for the global economy - and this is true whether the global economy is on either a fixed or a flexible exchange rate system. In essence, when any nation runs persistent export surpluses to accumulate foreign reserves, it is playing a game of Old Maid and passing the Black Queen of unemployment and indebtedness to its trading partners.

Any nation stuck with the Black Queen must use a combination of previously saved foreign reserves and/or additional international loans to pay for their current excess of imports and service existing international debts. As foreign reserves dwindle and international indebtedness increases, a deficit nation finds it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to service its outstanding international debt obligations.

To prevent default, the International Monetary Fund can make new loans to the indebted nation allowing it to meet current obligations by increasing future debt service obligations.

These IMF loans require deficit nations to adopt "Washington Consensus" reforms where (1) all domestic financial, labour and product markets must be freed of institutional rigidities (including a government social safety net), and (2) the nation must tighten its belt, by running a primary fiscal surplus and high interest monetary policies.

Belt tightening depresses the nation's economy, forcing impoverished residents to reduce their purchases of all goods and services including imports. Belt tightening also tends to depress the export industries of its trading partners, creating unemployment abroad.

Any decline in the deficit nation's exchange rate encourages domestic residents and foreign investors to move their funds to a safe haven in another country. Almost inevitably, the indebted nation cannot free itself from the increasing weight of its hard currency international debts except by default. The result is a moribund economy, for example, Argentina in 2002.

The main failure of the international financial system is its inability to foster continuous global expansion. The main burden of adjustment to an export-import imbalance is always on the deficit nation.

Nevertheless because the major trading nations have accepted a dollar standard, the US can print dollars with abandon and avoid this burden.

Since the 1980s the US has happily neglected its huge annual import surpluses, which creates as much as $500bn (,,290bn) in demand for the export industries of its trading partners.

America's benign neglect of its annual import surplus has prevented the global economy collapsing into a great depression. Can the rest of the world rely on the world's greatest debtor to continue to promote demand for other nation's export industries?

If the global economy abandons the dollar and adopts a euro standard, global aggregate demand would fall by more than $500bn. The US could no longer avoid reducing its import demand to a level of export earnings as creditor nations no longer extend credit by adding additional US treasuries to their foreign reserves.

The cure lies in creating new international financial architecture, as President Clinton called for after the 1998 Russian debt default.

A big financial architectural change will require developing a system where the creditor nations accept a large share of the responsibility for making adjustments by spending their excessive reserve holdings on imports or direct foreign in vestment. This will allow the debtor nations to sell more abroad and thereby work their way out of their debtor position.

In my recent book, Financial Markets, Money and the Real World, I have proposed the creation an international clearing union that is designed (1) to prevent a lack of global effective demand due to nations oversaving liquid foreign reserves (2) to induce the surplus nation to contribute to resolving the importexport imbalance, since the surplus nation has the economic wherewithal and is in the better economic position and [3] to encourage debtor nations to work their way out of debt rather than await handouts or bailouts, or to default on their international obligations.

Some think that this clearing union plan, like Keynes's bancor plan a half century earlier, is utopian.

But if we start with the defeatist attitude that it is too difficult to change the awkward system in which we are trapped, then no progress will be made.

The health of the world's economic system will simply not permit us to muddle through. ·

Paul Davidson is editor of the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics