A Mathematically Pragmatic Universal Constitution…

Motto of the elite: “Placate the sovereign individual with complex words' systems, to keep him docile”.

SB asked this question in his last post to me:

“Will we allow it to be ? education into the human condition if sprinkled lightly over all people can make it s(o: - any ideas on how to bypass the politicians, bankers and lawyers who don't like people talkin', getting ideas ...?"

"Politicians enriched for lawyers - words with zero information content when wielded by these dangerously erratic people."

…and yes, I do have many ideas on how to bypass the politicians, bankers and lawyers who don’t like people talkin’, getting ideas, against the wishes of politicians being enriched by/for lawyers, by words with zero information content, when wielded by these dangerously erratic people__The answer is a bit of truth, for the first time in history…

Throw away Aristotle, W.James and J.Dewey, they are fools. Pick up on all the early and late pragmatic Pythagorean Greeks, and Ibn Sina, Kant, Peirce, Veblen and J.M.Keynes, the intelligent mathematical pragmatists. Re-found all your thinking on this new principle: The Mathematical Theorem of Genericity: "Mathematical genericity is absolutely required to sensibly understand reality, simply...", and its clearer explanation: "Truth is eternally limited to genericity, due to the fact that the manifold of interpretation is infinitely extendable__X/X=1+IEE, eternally..." These general facts just make it an easier standpoint, to see the greater Universal/eclectic picture. Then maybe we’ll have a shot at enlightening the world to the fallacies of all nations’ Imperial Preference Constitutions, which are no more than Elite Documents to enhance theft by the well-off and powerful, while their handmaiden_The Academic Elites_create word systems to placate the sovereign individuals out of their natural rights, and into docility, poverty, crime and wars.

We used to have simple intelligence when we knew grounded mathematical truths could rule the massive over-inadequate word systems. Now, we have a complexity to inanity, leaving nothing and nobody in charge, but money and the evil power pinhead-elites. The sovereign individual must pick up his God-given innate talents, for recognizing new mathematical truths, and help in the great anti-intellectual battle that needs waging. It’s a simple mathematical method of truth, based on the old Greek Golden Ratios’ maths of least and most squares and powers. It quickly and easily shows everyone the two truths’ systems the Rich and powerful have erected over the millennia__The powerful one for themselves, and the weak one for the less well-off sovereign individuals.

The sovereign individual was weakened by the promise of equal rights for all, when in fact all constitutions simply guarantee rights according to the skills of theft, and you’ll all find these Imperial Preference clauses in the constitutions of all nations on Earth__These anti-innocuous laws must be changed, to laws closer satisfying the rights of all sovereign individuals, not just the wealthy few. The battle is nothing more than the sovereign individuals rights, and/verses, the corporate/government theives’ rights. It’s completely your choice to fight the intellectual battle for your own sovereign rights__Please choose correctly.

The Two Rights Systems are no more than stupid verses intelligent pragmatism. The stupid system uses complexities of all kinds, to blind all weak parties into docility. The innate intelligent system uses the sensible middle way mathematics of old, and awakens the juices of possibilities for the weak to intellectually over-throw the powerful__"Yes We Can". The faulty democracies of ‘Crooks and Criminals’ must be replaced with democracies of Total Sovereign Individual Rights of Truly and Fairly Incentivized Equality and Pure Liberty, for the first time in world history. The constitutions of pure sovereign theft must be swapped, at the nearest yard sale, for what the elite years ago threw away, as junk thought, because it slightly invaded their absolute rights of pure theft. And the greatest criminal in the long march of word-smithing was one darling lil’ ol’ Aristotle, creating the most elaborate phony logic system, the world has ever witnessed, yet most have been too ill prepared to find the simple mathematical truths of history, to over-come this madman of rhetorical solipsism. That time of sovereign individual blindness, is now ending__Good riddance to the ignorance of Aristotle and his ilk…

And, it’s time for all willing bodies to help end the World’s love affair of: “Equal Rights According and Accorded to the Skills of Theft”…

p.s.
Where we are now: Link
Where we can go: Link

Analytic Eclecticism__A Scientific Probability Method...

"“Eclecticism” is a name given to a group of ancient philosophers who, from the existing philosophical beliefs, tried to select the doctrines that seemed to them most reasonable, and out of these constructed a new system (see Diogenes Laertius, 21). The name was first generally used in the first century BCE. Stoicism and Epicureanism had made the search for pure truth subordinate to the attainment of practical virtue and happiness. Skepticism had denied that pure truth was possible to discover. Eclecticism sought to reach by selection the highest possible degree of probability, in the despair of attaining to what is absolutely true. In Greek philosophy, the best known Eclectics were the Stoics Panaetius (150 BCE.) and Posidonius (75 BCE.). The New Academic, Carnaedes (155 BCE.), and Philo of Larissa (75 BCE.). Among the Romans, Cicero, whose cast of mind made him always doubtful and uncertain of his own attitude, was thoroughly eclectic, uniting the Peripatetic, Stoic, and New Academic doctrines, and seeking the probable (illud probabile). The same general line was followed by Varro, and in the next century the Stoic Seneca propounded a philosophical system largely based on eclecticism." Author unknown

A note just to let everybody know the method of thought, I'm most often using...

The False Utopias of Scientific Logic & God Logic, As Now Percieved…

Can any one of us truly answer the question: “How does one know the boundary line between logic and ego?” Is it even possible to discern? What is the exact criteria you use to determine whether you are using a logic faithful to your chosen field of belief? How do you even make your ideas truly clear to yourself? What are your methods? Do you even believe there are any truly value-valid methods? Is mathematics a sound method, and do you use math? Is empiricism a sound method? Is fallibility and doubt to be thoroughly investigated in developing one’s logic? Are experiments logically valid, and how does one draw conclusions from experiments? Is faith a satisfactory method for some, and what is its true ground or grounds of thought? Is science a satisfactory method for others, and what is its true ground or grounds of thought? Is logic scientifically valid, as now constructed, or as is used in a folk(natural) usage? How does ego know logic as logic, and not ego? How does logic know ego as ego, and not logic? As per all the new and extended logics, of the centuries, what makes logic sound and valid…?

False & True Philosophical Utopias...

(Anyone wishing to follow these dabates as they take place: cleck here)(click image for larger view)

“Two things here are all-important to assure oneself of and to remember. The first is that a person is not absolutely an individual. His thoughts are what he is "saying to himself," that is, is saying to that other self that is just coming into life in the flow of time. When one reasons, it is that critical self that one is trying to persuade; and all thought whatsoever is a sign, and is mostly of the nature of language. The second thing to remember is that the man's circle of society (however widely or narrowly this phrase may be understood), is a sort of loosely compacted person, in some respects of higher rank than the person of an individual organism." C.S. Peirce

The above quote is the central premises of explanation of my graphic, in my first post this month. If one studies the depth of Peirce’s statements related to my graphic, the truths are represented by the three center circles, which can actually be the three conceptual/perceptual and non-perceptual selves, as one fades, one is present ‘I’/being, and the third is the self “coming into life in the flow of time”. The reason I’ve chosen conflexivity is I didn’t feel the present terms actually covered all the actions taking place in our mental processes. Others have chosen the words, ‘Abduction’, ‘Reflexivity’ and ‘Reflexive Control’, but it’s more than a mere reflexive system__The deepest mind states are a truly conflexive process. By conflexivity, I mean, as an analogy, say an epiphany, which is a split second lucid vision into the super-consciousness of one’s own mind, or as some would believe, into the super-consciousness of all minds or even a universal mind. The reason I choose ‘con-’ is it has the meaning, when added to ‘flexivity’, of being two or many processes in one, especially as relates to a small split second’s epiphany, having the massive power of vision to reveal such a large amount of information, it’s often over-whelming to retrieve at that moment. It may take years or even decades to understand the entire meaning of such epiphanies, as I’m sure many of you have experienced, and for this reason and the explanation’s complexity, I’ve chosen the word conflexivity. If one looks up ‘con’ in the online etymology dictionary at; http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=con&searchmode=none one will quickly see the utility of the many meanings, which suits my purpose well, as I intend, over the next 6 months, to relay an entire system of philosophy, by a method I’ll later explain. For now, it’ll be from a universal standpoint of eclectic genericity. By using a general method, it allows me to take in all the breadth of universal facts and beliefs, and at the same time allows a perspective of the depths of particular facts and individual beliefs, desires, habits and ambitions…

So as not to become bogged down in constant extreme debates between others varied views and ideas, and my own, I’ll be responding with general impersonal expositions of my ideas, as loosely relates to others’ ideas. My methods have their main foundations in the early Jains, Nyaya, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Euclid, Eudoxus, Nicomachus, Archimedes, Apollonius, A.Biruni, Avicenna/Ibn Sina, A.Magnus, F.Bacon, Boole, De Morgan, W.Clifford, A.Schopenhauer, C.S.Peirce, T.Veblen, W.Durant and L.Kolakowski. The three I’m most impressed with are Ibn Sina, C.S.Peirce and L.Kolakowski, as all three offer eclectic universal genericity perspectives. Both Ibn Sina and C.S.Peirce offered complete philosophical systems, including all views of human thought, i.e., Logic, Physics, Metaphysics, Spiritism and complete category systems to boot. These two are the only ones who offered all of human thought in one person, and respected all aspects of these diverse mentalities of history, therefore I have a great deal of respect for them, especially as offering a great helping hand to unite the many dis-united schools of thought, mentalities and ideas of our present ‘crazy’ world.

As to the ‘False & True Philosophical Utopias’, this will be an ongoing discussion about “The Mentalities of Histories” as Kolakowski has named them. This ‘mentalities’ has far greater conceptual representational power than say, ‘The History of Ideas’, ‘The Intellectual History of Eras’ or ‘The History of Concepts’, as ‘The History of Mentalities’ can represent anything from the smallest personal individual in depth idea, to the largest universal open conceptual ideas of the planet’s evolutional mental state, as expressed by people such as P.T de Chardin, E.Schrodinger, D.Bohm and even J.Lovelock. I intend to discuss most all the false utopias of leftists and rightists, i.e., Marxism, socialism, communism, the Heinz 57 totalitarianisms, the Heinz 57 capitalisms and anything else that comes up as relates to social philosophy, social justice and a possible evolution to a true state of pure liberty, based on the complete ‘Inversity’ of present state law system understandings, through full explanations of what ‘Inverse Greed’ truly consists of. This may sound like a tall order, but I assure you I have simplified the process greatly over the last two years, by graphing, tabling and charting these processes and methods with an analogical/visual representation that’ll become obvious as we progress. I’ve named my entire philosophical system ‘Aneology’, which means ‘One Visual Logic…’

Not to make this post any longer, I’ll end here for now…

P.S.
The Q, C, and X, as represented above stand for Q = quantum states(though all 3 are quantum change states), C = biological cells, and X = foreign exchange markets, as so emplaced. These letters can be replaced to represent all central actions of brain/mind states, or other states of complexity of the nations' systems and world systems, where complexities yet unsolved exist. In other words I could have the letters, M = minds, P = photons, and C = concepts, etc., etc. Just as in all algebras, the letters are interchangable as per the topics of discussions proceed. As per the drawing's box informations, they are all chiralling cycloid motions of photons, as photons are the family of bosons, which allow super-positioning/cloning, etc., as per Einstein, which allows concepts to merge from lesser states to greater vision states, then fade to emplaced memory states. Future diagrams and explanations of the mechanics will form the entire picture of a working brain/mind model and possible and necessary probable world mechanics of...

The reason foreign exchange is included is it represents one of the largest areas of incomplete complexity(and many others will be shown in future posts), similar or symmetrical, information wise, as that of deep brain/mind mechanics of hypotheses formations, and possibly a clearer method of future explanations, since any internal mind states, not completely understood, can more easily be represented by symmetrical relationships of external real world states(I'm drawing the symmetries of actions from E.Noether and her statements of physical states in relation to the symmetries of the laws of physics and nature, and the required conditions of her theorems_She's one of our most important global resources of unifying thought). Just as morality can not be agreed to internally(the epistemic dilemma of 'free will and responsibility'), other than our individual prejudices learned by age 18, as per Nietzsche, this same internal moral state can be understood through its symmetrical external relationship of the desires, ambitions and habits of entire communities' esthetic liberty actions, as represented by the real world accomplishments we see around us, which actually exists by the original moral desires and ambitions of individual choices, and this way morality is actually externally/objectively, scientifically measurable_over time. As an example, we all enjoy living in comfortable houses, as per living in cold, damp caves_that's a moral/happiness personal choice we all make. Though some may not see it as a moral choice, one only has to think about the more compassionate condition of wife and children's comfort of house compared to cave, then one sees the moral/happiness implications. This will also be given through future graphs, tables and graphics, with their related explanations, and showing how to measure not only morality, but a closing of many of philosophy's epistemic and ontological gaps...

Hope that helps...

And as per logic of, logic simply tells us the true and false condition states of our reasoning, and no more, i.e., reason asks/contemplates the questions/doubts, and logic answers the condition states of... Of course, many conflate logic states with Aristotle's syllogistic 3 laws of logic__I use Ibn Sina's, Boole's, Lobachevsky's, Grassmann's, De Morgan's, Clifford's, Peirce's and Vasiliev's much extended logics, over Aristotle's less extensive reasonings...