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 - )

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.


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


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?