“We should chiefly depend not upon that department of the soul which is most superficial and fallible (our reason), but upon that department that is deep and sure, which is instinct.” - Charles Sanders Peirce
Far too much about history has been stated in narrow analytical diatribe, inconcise nonsense, and pure empty rhetoric… Why? Are we really that dense? A simple first example; Aristotle___Most think he’s great because he wrote about a beautiful system of ethics, true enough, but what about his non-sensical silly-gistic proposition/predicate logic, or whatever you want to call it? Then along comes Kant with another beautiful system of ethics and arithmetic liberty, but what about his wedge driven between the “logica utens” and the “logica docens”? Was there any need of these two great minds dividing our natural senses so miserably? So nefariously? Then, just as the world is starting to come out of its stupidity, with Boole, DeMorgan, Jevons, Peirce and Shroader, along comes Frege with more of the same old divisions of logical sense/nonsense(and conflation), which has continued through Cantor, Piano, Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Quine and Chomsky, ruling most of modern intellect. Oh, and don’t let me forget Hegel___That wonderful over-worshiper of state. Neitzsche? Another life hater. Beautiful story, ‘ain’t’ it…?
Is it true? How would you tell truth? Really, tell me… Napolean existed___True. Stalin existed___True. Hitler existed___True. Mooselini existed___True. Hussein and Bin Ladin existed/exist___True. Is this the type of truth the world really believes? Is there any real truth of “Power”? Does anyone on Earth know what the truth of “Power” really is? Is power logical to itself? Yes. Is power ethical to itself? Yes. Is power truthful to itself? Yes. Is power honest to itself? Yes. Is power all the above to a majority of its citizens? Yes, more often than we care to think about. Believe me, Caligula and Machiavelli have no one-up-ness on most of the modern world, it’s just that now, we do it all with the power systems of money___The Corporate Military Industrial Complexes.
Let’s take an eclectic look at historical power, through the eyes of logic, math, philosophy and money, Ok? What made it all go wrong? Simple question___Complex answer. Let’s rephrase it. What made it all go mathematically so wrong? That can be answered. Let’s look at the actors and players, mainly from history’s most influencial source___The academics. At least, most of them think they’re the most influencial source of change and refinement. Why is it we have such genius arithmetic scientists, and yet such meager philosophers of the mathematical sciences? Is it accidents of history, the complexity and time study constraints of history, or possibly the laziness of philosophers to truly learn the requisite maths, to more effectively describe mathematical histories’ and meta-histories’ truths?
Looking back at the early Greeks, we find great advancements by the geometers and the Pythagorean Schools, up until Aristotle. Then___What happened? The Pythagoreans had developed a most advanced triadic math and logic, with a necessary “mean terms”. They had the “Triadic Law of Mean Terms”___“The Triadic Principle”. This was a very pragmatic system of math and logic as attributed to them by Socrates, and much of Plato’s dialogues. Even Aristotle’s early work on the Nicomachean Ethics was excellent work, when he was still influenced by Plato and the Pythagoreans, but things shortly changed. The change, due to much critical Greek antagonism, may have forced Aristotle to try and sure up his philosophy, but without the genius influence and help of Plato, Aristotle went down a very confusing and false road. He separated the “logica utens” and the “logica docens” into two entirely distinct schools of thought, with his three laws of logic, and the main fault being the “Excluded Middle”. This put his logic in direct opposition with Pythagorean Triadic Logic and Math, with a new less powerful Dyadic Logic and Math. Archimedes tried to salvage it, as did Eudoxas, Nicomachus and Apollonius, and later the Arabic speaking nation-states, with their “Houses of Wisdom”, also tried to salvage the early Greek ideas, yet to no avail, when Averroes came along. Aristotle’s logic won the day, over the more able Triadic Logics of the early Pythagoreans, as the early Greek and Byzantine knowledge systems slowly crept into Europe. Could this have been different? Why was it so disasterous?
We all know the history by now. The “Port Royal Logic” School accepted the less capable and confusing “Dyadic Logic” and “Math Systems” of the Aristotle influenced schools. Even Galen had clearly shown the faults of much of Aristotle’s system, and the Arabic peoples, up to Biruni and Avicenna, clearly tried to right the wrongs, to no avail, so we finally ended with two distinct logic and math systems and schools of thought, right down to this day, but more of the history needs mentioning. Many mathematicians and true working scientists, through the years , always followed the true Pythagorean, Euclidian and Archimedean Schools, but most philosophers of, and many more falsely influenced scientists and mathematicians followed the more confused logic, arithmetic and (modal schools, which the Byzantine’s had created). Then along comes the enlightenment, to pull the wool fully over everyone’s eyes, for many years to come, with Descarte’s further separation of mind and body, etc., etc., and finally to the point everything was so confusing, Kant came along to try and straighten it all out. But, he ended separating the “Utens” and “Docens” even further___Nice try, but no ringers. Oh, there was his excellent mathematical ethics and liberty papers, but the true philosophical and final sense separation was devastating for logic and math systems for the next 150 years. You see, math and true mathematical logic are of the “logica utens” and most philosophers describe this true a priori ground as though it’s of the “logica docens”, and herein lies all the confusion.
Now, was this accidental or pure laziness, on the part of the philosophers and historians? I can’t truly answer this, but if life’s experiences are any guide, there’s a good percentage of all trades, crafts and professionals that are just plain lazy and downright slackers, so my money is on history really being controlled by this lazy-slacker element of all societies___Period…! The bad runs both up and down hill. No matter how brilliant anyone wants to think the professional classes are, that’s not my experience of life, at near 64 years of age, and this is why the human element of any system’s success is dubitable, unless we can turn much of society’s bad elemental powers over to properly algorithmatized computers___I have no faith in humanity changing, even if they realize their lives are at stake. I think there’s just far too many lazy-slackers who just wouldn’t believe it if the “Bear” were staring them in the face. They’d say, “Nice Bear”.
Well anyway, after Kant got through trashing the system, along came Hegel kissing up to the state, and a metaphysical “Notion”, after Kant had already created the “Thing In Itself” boogy-man. There’s really a ‘lotta’ interpretation in those two ideas, kinda like Wittgenstein’s “Private Language”. Yeah, I admit we all do have private self-languages, but that’s not what ‘Witt’ meant, and we all know that. As I mentioned earlier, others came along in time to straighten the world mess out, but America’s invasion by Europe’s WWI and WWII hoards of professional miscreants clobbered us, and down to the bottom of the barrel went Peirce, and his student Veblen, to only be replaced by English and European mediocrity, ending the only true and valid “Triadic Systems” revival, at that time possible.
Luckily, the last few decades have begun to change the world intellectual picture, even if it’s still but in the periphery, Peirce’s, Jevons’, Veblen’s and Keynes’ views are coming back into vogue, through the new heterodox schools. It only takes a quick Google search to verify this___millions of hits, thank ‘god’, when all epistemic and cognitive searches are done. So let’s take a quick look at the possible revival of “Triadic Ideas” as relates to the “Semantic Web” possibly not being so parasitic on the “Pragmatic Web” in our highly possibly better future.
How can we best represent global power systems? Capitalism? Socialism? Communism? Social Contracts? Contractarianism? Nationalism? Or Social Democratic Capitalism mixes? Taking an eclectic view, allowing a triadic isomorphic systems logic, which would recognize our better nature’s priority over our higher nature’s ego, we may have a shot at a new and total understanding. Are any of these systems true? Are any of these systems value validity preserving___sustainable? We’re certainly going to have to admit the present system has failed, or at the least terribly mis-fired. Are we going to have to rebuild it? Replace it? Coddle it? Or outright change the entire system for something entirely new? Does anyone really know about Keynes’ total system of “International Exchange Clearing, Bancor and Emergency Jobs Banks?” Does anyone even truly realize we have the computational ability to figure new systems from a future model’s arithmetic completion position? Can anyone even believe this? There’s lots of talk of adopting amalgamations of old tried and failed systems, but not much of Keynes’ true “Middle Way.” What if there’s an even better “Middle Way” compatible with the yearnings of entire generations’ better nature’s and higher natures? Surprise___There is, and has been for years. I, Paul Davidson and Jane D’Arista have been offering just such systems for years, but where’s the eclectic understanding, high enough, to see the possibility of a “Semantic Web” evolving the “Pragmatic Web” to a really new and true “Knowledge Web?” Not just more of the same, but a full-fledged, benign, algorithmic computerized system, capable of eliminating the un-necessary parasitic powers, that now rule the world economies to madness. I’d suggest studying Macromouse, The Awakening of the American Mind, Paul Davidson’s massive body of academic work, or Jane D’Arista’s ideas, then maybe we’ll have a chance.
There’s no sense me re-writing it all here again, as it’s all been posted at these sites. Charles Sanders Peirce, and his relational quantification logic, is the key mind to putting together all the “Triadic Isomorphic Logic” necessary to accomplish the above…