The Triangle of Triadic Wisdom, to Actionable Intelligence and Actionable Use...

Archimedes' triadic proof of the trisection of an angle.

"Mathematics, semantics and pragmatics properly applied to 'The highest probability, of the highest possibility, is the only possibility', creates an absolute wisdom logic and truth, when thoroughly explicated, by isomorphically uniting the triadic ancient mathematicians and philosophers, with the modern triadic mathematicians and philosophers". me

"One of the metaphysical principles of the Pythagoreans is called the Triadic Principle or the Law of Mean Terms. It is based on the idea that there can be no meeting between opposites, and therefore, for there to be a Harmonia, or Union, of the opposites, there must be a Mean Term, which has something in common with each of the Extremes. The Mean Term both connects the Extremes, but also keeps them separate by occupying the gap between them. Therefore, as we will see, Mediating powers are also Separating powers"... John Opsopaus

"...Therefore, another mean is required to unite the original mean with each of the extremes. As a consequence, the advancing Pythagorean analysis of Reality discovered an ever-proliferating family of triads. This is avoided by a more profound version of the Triadic Principle, called the Principle of Continuity. It recognizes that there is a continuum or spectrum from one extreme to the other. The proliferating triads are simply finer divisions of the continuum". J.Opsopaus

63 years of wandering in the wilderness of senses and intellects has brought me to the above title, to describe my brand of “Pragma”, the old Pythagorean name for pragmatic operations of mind and society. This post will be about the eclectic ontological geometry of a priori perception and action, or the simple/complex mechanics and actions of mind and nations___A priori, as it is about first actions, first.

Many have read and studied the varied fields of knowledge, accepted or rejected certain schools of thought, and may have come to certain conclusions or not. This matters not, as I plan to take you where you’ve most likely, never been. We’ve all read or heard the words of the thousands of master-minds of recorded history, whether mathematician, philosopher, scientist, spiritist, theologian, linguist or whatever___but, have we truly seen what we’ve witnessed? I say no, we’ve a lot deeper to trek___The forest is very thick.

Just look at perception, our first action. It first sees hunger and discomfort. A few days later perception opens its eyes for the first time, and an amazing fact takes place, by no intentional action of the individual___perception starts mathematically mapping the surrounding world, totally passively to the individual, yet most isomorphically perfectly matching the outside images, to the inside images of natural instinctual, self-functioning, perception and memory. This is the eclectic ontological geometry of passive perception on autopilot. Before we as individuals even decide to will objects into perception, nature has implanted our minds/brains/memories with the natural given ground, or I could say the a priori given ground of perception, and the natural given ground of nature, man and the universe, have passively entered and first started the natural induction processes.

Do we have any idea how complex the maths involved, in this earliest stages of development truly are? I’m not only talking about the image mapping transference maths/actions required, but we must realize perception herself, must possess all the ‘arithmetic’ ability potentials of these first feats, before we even leave the womb. Think about it. Perception can geometrize all these images, dimensionalize them, isomorphically map them exactly as seen, and all without the slightest error of representation. Just try personally to exactly draw/paint what you, as an adult see, on canvas. How close can you come to exactness? I think you’ll quickly get the complex picture, if I just recommend you do a simple thought trick. Picture a triangle in your mind’s eye. Zoom it small and then large. Do the same with a circle. Now the same with a square. Don’t cheat buy looking at the next few sentences. Stop, and repeat this several times. Now, take note. What did you see? Plato’s Forms?(he maybe interpreted it too metaphysically, but I think we’re mature enough scientifically to differentially see the reality of his Forms and Archetypes as scientific abstractions, and the same goes for the Pythagoreans, to our interpretations of their metaphysics and mysticisms)___Intuitionistically formed by the natural given scientific abstract perception. Was the triangle a perfect equilateral triangle? Was the circle a perfect circle? Was the square a perfect square? I’m willing to bet they were, as I’ve performed this thought experiment with many others, and the answers were always the same___perfect figures___but why and how? You didn’t even participate in making them perfect. The mind of perception worked alone, after you thought of the general term, and perception passively did the geometric/dimensionalizing/zooming perfection(that’s a bunch of isomorphic maths)___You can’t even do it free-hand on a piece of paper, yet passive perception can function as near ‘arithmetic’ perfection. IMO, this is why the early Greeks were so amazed with geometry, and no early school exceeded the depth of the Pythagoreans at geometry, and the earliest algebras they produced, as witnessed by the Pythagorean theorem, which btw relates directly to the golden ratio/mean/variable by way of Kepler’s Pythagorean triangle, built upon the golden ratio geometry, and all constructed with just a compass and straight edge. The above is why math is our superior a priori essence agent, and must be mentally maintained so, to truly and fully interpret logic and intuition’s facts of the actionably intelligent world of pragmatics, and its kissing triadic cousin, semantics.

As far as I can find, the Pythagoreans were the first to state ideas of “Pragma”, and it meant ‘operations’ of minds and systems, just as Peirce(basing his ideas on the early Greeks) interpreted it many years later in the pragmatic maxim. ; “Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings you conceive the objects of your conception to have. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object”. I have restated this as per the title as, “The Triangle of Triadic Wisdom, to Actionable Intelligence”, by joining Pythagorean thinking and Charles Sanders Peirce’s thought concepts. The Pythagoreans defined a triadic principle as the necessary “mean term” between opposites(they just didn’t possess the isomorphic/morphic knowledges and maths, we now do, though they did have morphic as a concept, yet not fully applied to their triadic system). This triadic structure of early Greek thought lasted until the later years of Aristotle, after Plato had died, when he then headed Greece down its dyadic Alexandrian road of destruction___Aristotle tried to eliminate the triadic___the most important perception element___from his system of pseudo-logics, and the empire’s reign of Alexander(Aristotle’s student) only lasted for eight years of senseless war, then divided and later fell to the Romans___Dyadic ostracism of the triadic___Not so good…

The Pythagoreans accepted three systems of thought and logic, 1.Monadic, 2.Dyadic, and 3.Triadic, which lasted up through Socrates and Plato’s eras(may have needed improvement, but not ostracism). It can be represented by a simple equilateral triangle, labled at its points 1.Intuition, 2.Arithmetic(Top), and 3.Logic, corresponding to the first three above. All three of both number series can contain triad trees, under triads, under them, while all three are also isomorphically interchangeably/inter-relational as to perception’s mechanics of chosen and unchosen “I” actions, as they all exist inside the perception agency of mind, as agents in the periphery of perception, to be inferred in by induction as needed. It may look complex at first, but it isn’t. Just consider any one agent, say intuition, being monadic in operation, meaning universal, can eclectically ontologically view and act with the other two agents, logic and math, and all their triadic tree sub-agents, through transductions, inductions, deductions and abductions___just simple isomorphic psychological/philosophical transferences. We do it all the time___every day___every second. It’s just the a priori mathematics of nature involved is stupendously superior to our feeble intelligences. And don’t take this as super-natural, as it’s not___It’s just a priorily naturally given mathematical complexity, just as is the given universal mechanics, and its related/constructed quantum mechanics, and Einstein’s field theories and maths.

I’m just trying to point out the fact, that if you want your mind to function properly, after the 2000+ year ostracism of one of its necessary entities, the triadic mechanics of perception, then simply adopt Hammurabi’s Code, “Know thyself, and the truth will set you free”. Many think it’s about transcendence, and nothing could be further from the truth. It’s about transc(i)ndence, not transcendence. It’s not about going or thinking above to the raw ego, it’s about going in and down to the senses in co-operation with the logic and math agents, fully understanding the eclectic ontological habits of all the people, and not just your chosen group. Most all the world’s great thinkers were eclectic ontological polymaths, not simple dyadic particularists, the world is so over-full of. The ‘Houses of Wisdom’ at Baghdad and Tehran clearly show this through history, as we would have no access to the ancient Greek wisdom, if it weren’t for the eclectic polymath ‘men of wisdom’ of these interim schools of thought, maintained through the early Dark Ages to the early Middle Ages, by wise men and women who truly cared. The world is really short on giving them the credit they deserve. There were hundreds, possibly thousands, working even by candle-light for more than a malenium, transcribing the Greek and other important early texts.

Now since I mentioned earlier the triadic triangle of thought, you may have noticed intuition being the included middle term of what Aristotle excluded with his interpretation of the pseudo-logics of the syllogismic logic. Aristotle was a brilliant ethicist, there’s no doubt about that, but after this early mathematical period under Plato’s Pythagorean mathematics school tuteledge, which is surely reflected in Aristotle’s Ethics, and Plato died, Aristotle drifted away from the Pythagorean method of using math to secure intuitive thought soundly within their triadic system, by banishing it to the scrap-heap of history, for about 2300 years, except in the Byzantine Empire era, and later in Peirce’s era, and lately with such authors as Bakhtin, Hintikka, Chiasson, Pietarinen, my-self and many, many recent others, re-investigating the history of our true “Triadic Utens” thinking, processing, and perceiving processes. Well, it’s been a long time since the Pythagoreans tried to develop a thorough school of thought, but It’s about time we started re-realizing the dynamic importance of this basic fundamental mechanics of the true geometry of our very own triadic a priori perception. We’ve been historically mind-crippled long enough!

Now many, especially the dyadic only crowd, would argue till the cows don’t come home, that the triadic can not function as math or logic, but they’d be wrong, as we’ve already, about 100 years, been using the intuitionistic maths and logics of L.E.J. Brouwer and many, many others in more fields of math, logics and computers than I could possibly list. So, I think it’s about time more dyadic analytic, continental, foundationalist and coherentist philosophers awoke from their pseudo-philosophic fallacy___The Aristotle/Frege/Saussure/Russell/Wittgenstein/Carnap/Quine/Chomsky seduction___and joined the real new world of truth to logical pragmatic actions, mathematical facts, and intuitive interpretations of. What do you think…?

Realize, intuition and logic function fine, when guided by the mathematical facts of practical and intelligent world actions… My next post will be about those practical and intelligent real world actions, it’s titled;
Flying Money___“Big Strong Dollar, Make Big Weak Nation…!”

Potential Photon Mass...?

As to mass, I've always argued the photon had to possess potential mass, otherwise it wouldn't radiate from matter(Potential mass, IMO, would turn to real mass inside the atom's structure, i.e., inside protons, electrons, neutrons, positrons and neutrinos___the QCD mechanics potentials). What I see is photons enter protons, etc., spin faster, accumulate by wave super-symmetry cloning, build mass within the QCD structure, and finally reach thermo-hydro-dynamic entropy and radiate, just as do jet galaxies___possibly like micro-black-holes. Just my theory, but seems to isomorphically fit the maths. I'm an old race-car mechanic, so I'm just looking for the simplest best working mechanics, to this universal engine :-)

What I've recently discovered is the isomorphic links between most all universal formulas and laws to most all universal systems and models of. So far, this seems to be true all the way back to Pythagoras, Euclid, Archimedes, Kepler, Newton, Leibniz, up to Peirce, Einstein and Godel, etc. Systems I've worked with for years are falling into place under this realization. Most of it is monadic, dyadic, triadic and a few p-adic principles, from the earliest of Pythagoras' Triadic Principle___The Law of Mean Terms___"Mean terms are required between opposites", to Peirce's triadic logics and maths of the early 20th century. The isomorphic mappings are taking me by surprise, as to how many links I am making, especially by using Pythagoras' triangle of triadic logics___1.Intuition, 2.Logic, 3.Arithmetic, on into the 'Golden Ratio', 'Golden Mean', 'Golden Variable', and 'Golden Triangle' of Kepler. As long as proper maths are applied to these triads, there's no problem with intuition existing in all truth and logic relations, thus making them into a possible new isomorphic logic, I've named, "Aneology".

Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in, as the maths we'll be needing, require much updating, and since my findings show the isomorphisms, not yet exposed by others, as to universal formulas(isomorphically) and laws possibly applying beyond the finite, this may work, to extend our ontological dialogic capacities. I'm already building new triadic to monadic(and dyadic to triadic in other areas) economic-social structures and laws with the inter-relations of linguistic geometry to systems laws and models.

The Politics of Ideologies…

I'll not take much of your busy schedule right now, but I thought I'd just mention about ideologies in the simplest manner possible... Every subject under the sun can be turned to an ideology, whether political economy, anthropology, religion, psychology, pseudo-histories, philosophies or what not. All these subject area people do is expand their world views from their chosen bases, and apply them to total global realities, that's why I choose "Eclecticism"___It takes the best from all views and ideologies, and casts away the worst. It's never set___It's always changing according to the evolution of ideas and historical evolution. This is where and why it’s the opposite of pluralism, which includes all views as valid___Na Da...

As to "A Priori"___It's just the ground base of how we "Know"___A priori refers to our essence agents(prior inborn instincts) and agency, that can truly "Know"(also called instinctual "logica utens" or instinctual "folk logic", or common sense and Mother Wit, or natural Wisdom Logic). This is where the triadic understanding of Peirce comes in. We know by "three" methods___1.Experience, 2.Direct Perception___Seeing, and 3.Arithmetic abstraction___Doing the math proofs of. These three are the only authentic methods, spiritually, scientifically or whatever, of thoroughly/truthfully knowing. And, experience and direct perception can sometimes/often fool us, as life's journey may have already taught you, but math applied to 1 and 2 always finds the actual truth of. I found through all my years of study, the mathematicians offered the wisest philosophies, as they offered the corrections to the philosophers, psychologists, or whatever worldview(psychology, etc.) talked of.
Just look thoroughly at Mathematician Godel's quote;

"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel
and Peirce's; “Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings you conceive the objects of your (best possible liberty)conception to have. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the (best and highest possible)object(a priori arithmetic liberty).” The pragmatic maxim, C.S. Peirce plus my bolded additions...

Extra advise comments to a friend;

Ideology question…? It was also moralism/humanism against science/logicism, and many humanists that backed the scientists and logicians. Quite a mixed bag of idea cross-overs. Nominalists and Phenominalists is also another way to name it, i.e., subjectivists and objectivists, i.e., internalists vs. externalists, sensists vs. physicalists. These argument differences were always referenced in philosophical terms until the later 19th century when psychology entered the scene, yet it has just about as many term classifications of its own, and many valid and invalid ones. Remember the taxonomy list I sent you last fall? There were about 500 philosophy classifications, of just systems alone, not counting all of each 500's terms. Education is far more complex than necessary until you know who and where the classifications are. Most of that would be 1.Aristotle, 2.Kant, 3.Linneas, 4.Whewell and 5.Peirce. These 5 are your major historical classificationists, who had wide historical influence, though there are many others, these were the best for their eras. No really scientific ones exist after Peirce, as things just got too complex for any human to tackle the present job. That's why Peirce is so important, as it's the only correct and complete classification of total ideas.

As to ideologies again…? Exactly. Historical time ideas always must also be considered when viewing such base desires and habits of all the people involved. Each and all have their own hidden agendas.

Truth question…? Yeah true, but true isn't always the best. Always follow the money first, then the beliefs/habits of the people, to locate the true motives of histories. Power usually has opposing desires to the people, then as now. That's why investigations toward truth must be grounded in scientific perception, the a priori arithmetic of the ancients, and moderns such as Kant, Schopenhauer, Locke, Peirce, Adorno, and many, many more good scientific spiritist thinkers. Aristotle(ethics good, but his logica docens needs major updating), Hegel, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Quine, Chomsky, etc., are more the separator, fallacy, anti-philosophers. The opposite sides always exist in all fields of study. As you say, "What a mess". Now you see what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. We gotta separate the true from the false, the pro- from the anti-, the love from the hate.

As to oppositions…? Being intelligently discretionary, and differentiating the wheat from the chaff, is never bigoted, yet the true bigots of their own ideologies will try to convince you, you are. Mind is a battlefield, so always be ready to stand your ground, yet be grounded thoroughly in your own solid ground, either a priori internally, or physically externally. When in real physical debate, remember there's only one public mind-space, and everyone fights for the floor of selves, in that single mind space.

A Priori applied to ideologies…? Anyone who thinks for the best natures, and higher natures of people, as long as the higher natures respect the best natures, and the best natures respect, what's incentive-wise necessary of the higher natures. Of course, there's many interpretations of this, such as Romanticism, egalitarianism, utilitarianism, liberalism, or even fair conservatism. The problem is, most use cross-current ideologies, instead of any pure defined ideology or system. Therein lies the communication problem, and inter-disciplinary problems.

Ideological linguistic question…? These ideas of teaching through literary classics and grammar are still prominent today, and much of post-mordernism believes, whereas I, as well as Phyllis Chiasson and many others say, people must be taught how to think first, before what to think, i.e., our leanings toward Peirce pragmatism.

Ideology question again…? Yes, most entirely, but there's more than one branch of liberalism___Valid and invalid, as there is to conservatism. Another problem is the meanings are often reversed between Europe and America. Financial liberalism, as in Europe, and here in America, when dealing with economics, means "to free a free markets, i.e., printing too much money by gov. and living beyond your means, while here, most often means too much social ligislation against free markets". Yet most Democrats think all liberalisms mean their idea of liberalism, i.e., social liberalism. Usually, Republicans interpret liberalism as the evil demon, when their own economists practice financial liberalism, for themselves, yet want financial conservativism, for all democrats, thus liberals. Republicans, just as Napolean did, know the state works best, for the powers that be when they preach the Janus Faced rhetoric of duplicity. This duplicity of power's meaning, to the people's corrupted interpretations of meanings, is the major dichotomy, one must see through first, to interpret any history, correctly. Colleges of the “All Too Rich” teach these duplicities of doctrines, and even debate the opposing Democrat/Liberal and Republican/Conservative positions, from all positions possible. So, the Republicans end extremely more educated than the liberals/democrats/Democrats. It's the democrats soul positions of cultural upbringing that is usually offended by such duplicit college training, they either don't take philosophy and rhetoric of, or quit such courses. So, in the end it comes down to humanism being good, but naive, unless taught the higher natures, along with the better natures. To only choose one, is to half-cripple oneself, and yet that's just what most of the world's best people do. Half an education, is almost no education. Ya gotta know how the more evil mind thinks and works, to survive the social intellectual world forum…

A View of Relative Pluralism

“Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings you conceive the objects of your (best possible liberty)conception to have. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the (best and highest possible)object(a priori arithmetic liberty).” The pragmatic maxim, C.S. Peirce plus my bolded additions...
{I'm piecing together some larger terminology now which I think will help in my future readings. I just read your blog the other day The Isomorphic Gates of Perception and think I understand what you are getting at. What do you mean by relative pluralism? I'm going to read your next blog when I get back from a break to the beach :)} A.
{“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer}

As to Schopenhauer, his quote is quite accurate, and he was a well respected philosopher, leaning quite heavily toward metaphysics, but that's fine. The third part "accepted as being self-evident", probably both of us would have a little trouble with, at the limits of. Though it is "self-evidently" true, often this truth can be "reified" or "petrified thinking"(in other words becoming incased in concrete fears instead of true arithmetic facts). By this I mean, the wrong self-evidence may be arrived at, as is far too often the case, but it is the truth of what societies do, as to turning beliefs to ideologies, dogmas and whatnot. Until we learn to apply "a priori soul arithmetic" to our egos and judgments, we'll be forever cast to the faults of false reasonings. "A Priori Arithmetic" is the old Greek words for fundamental math to correct our reasoning mistakes. They did it with the golden ration and the golden mean of, which can still be applied to all thinking, as I have roughly shown, in my latest posts. Until we learn to do this again, apply the truth of "best nature"(soul and spirit) and highest nature "arithmetics"(arithmetic intellect) to our perception and understanding processes, we'll remain trapped in the viscious circles of relative pluralism. We need to advance to eclectic understandings of the all in everything, yet truly differentiable, and re-integrable.

Relative pluralism, as I'm interpreting it, is as in opposition to eclectic truth(the first sees all views to have equal value, and the second sees only the views of value differentiation and integrations of true personal, social and liberty improvements, to have real value). At the turn of the 20th century all philosophy and general universal thinking entered a period of crises, with the complexities of Maxwell's electro-magnetism, Planck's quantum heat ideas and Einstein's relativity. Due to this extreme complexity entering the universal psyche of all thought, psychology and philosophy, most people became very confused of how to interpret the newly found complexities of science, physics, maths, psychologies, spiritualisms, whatever, in relations to the new discoveries... This is where relative pluralism first showed its confused face, and throughout the 20th century increased the mis-interpretations of the basic scientific ideas with soft-science and science interpretations of most of our intellectual domain. Relative pluralism, or more precisely, many of the truth relativists, think all truth is relative, when nothing could be further from the truth. They all think Einstein and other scientists actually think that all thought is relative, when in fact, Einstein's relativity is actually the physical "law of invariance" of the speed of light in vacuum(and measurements of). It's just scientists always present initial ideas as theories, in case they may be wrong. Einstein was not wrong, but the initial theory having such a powerful dynamic change of the physical understandings of science, "The Theory of Relativity"stuck(sadly so, almost everywhere___yet false, except to relative measurements). Both Einstein and Bohr warned the world, as early as the twenties, they were mis-interpreting the science, but the psychologists and philosophers didn't listen, and most still haven't. That's why I've always taken all my studies back before the era of confusion, to find the real foundational truths. This usually requires "pre-twenties" ideas. And of course, that's why I concentrate on Peirce's work, as he's the last true a priori, eclectic, arithmetic philosopher with his near completely true scientific pragmatism(at least, he's the best so far, right to the present). His philosophy also allows for all metaphysics, religious views and spiritualisms, as well as all the sciences. A priori is simply the thinking potential we're all born with, whether of soul, judgment, reason, logic or whatever. It's our basic thinking perception. It's also arithmetical, or it couldn't produce geometric representations, and dimensionalisms of the real world, thus its mechanics is a basic a priori potential arithmetic(spirit and science, at the highest arithmetic potentials, are isomorphically identical___The best, greatest and highest is always the best greatest and highest___No matter the source___Just an a priori truth).

So, relative pluralism(much of feminism, etc.) is mixed-up and mis-interpreted eclecticism, as used to exist from Socrates on, falsely pushed into anti-truths, anti-psychologies and anti-philosophical systems and bogus ideologies. No truth can be relative. If it were, it wouldn't be truth___Truth is truth(always a priori arithmetically provable, whether spirit or physical universe___Think about it, always big and small concepts of your own ideas___that's a priori arithmetic, unless just a simple non-arithmetical truth statement like "my truck is black"). It may change over time, but that's entirely different(It's still true truth, for our time). So the eclectic ideas of invariant fundamental truths actually do exist. Though the invariable truths may be smaller in number than the variable (variable, not relative) truths, they are the more powerful framework, that holds the whole world together. These invariant truths are mainly the physical laws of nature(really, basically the actions of nature, and the base geo-mechanics of our universe___particle/wave actions), discovered by the scientists of math, since the Euclidean Geometers of the "Golden Ratio", and "Golden Mean", to Archimedes’ "Center of Mass", to Newton’s "Laws of Motion" on into Einstein's "Laws of Mass"___The invariant laws, on and on, etc, etc, creating and maintaining the true spiritual/physical eclectic nature of our world. All these laws are isomorphic(meaning they arithmetically map) to all the world's pragmatic(meaning physical and useful psychological actions) realities of Ol' Mother Earth, and her people, of all walks of life.

Hope that helps. If it's too confusing, just ask for further clarifications. BTW, there are some good pdf's on sound feminist philosophy, but I can't put my finger on them right now, but it's about "Standpoint(global/personal viewpoint of) Epistemology"(they also admit the philosophic dilemma of it). It's much better than the feminists coming from relative pluralism, and all the prejudice that entails.

P=NP Incomplete___The Maximal Triadic Axiomatic Truths, And Un-Truths

P=NP___Authors: Selmer Bringsjord, Joshua Taylor

"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel
"Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein

Since the days of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, there has been a division of thought pertaining to arithmatic, logic and truth, as to which is prime. I intend to show beyond doubt that arithmatic is prime. I will do this with 18 maximal triadic thought statements. The statements only apply to the ultimate ability of thought to reason thoroughly open and independently of strict rational thought, though they can apply in many other areas of thought. That is not my itention. I’m dealing only with the sources of ancient and modern thought problems. I’ll start this off with a few general universal axioms:

"A priori arithmetic is the greatest philosophy knowable to humanity." me
“There exists no mind or machine, sufficiently powerful, to process finity and infinity, simultaneously!”___Proofs below…
“The highest probability, of the highest possibility, is the only possibility.”

Now, I’ll list 6 triadic axioms of math, truth and necessity:

1.The highest probable truth, of the highest possible math, is the highest necessity possible.
2.The highest probable truth, of the highest possible necessity, is the highest math possible.
3.The highest probable math, of the highest possible truth, is the highest necessity possible.
4.The highest probable necessity, of the highest possible truth, is the highest math possible.
5.The highest probable math, of the highest possible necessity, is the highest truth possible. ***
6. The highest probable necessity, of the highest possible math, is the highest truth possible. ***

So far, so good, these are all true, with #5 and #6 being highest truths possible. Next I’ll list 6 more triadic axioms of logic, truth and necessity.

1. The highest probable logic, of the highest possible truth, is the highest necessity possible.
2. The highest probable logic, of the highest possible necessity, is the highest truth possible. ***
3. The highest probable truth, of the highest possible logic, is the highest necessity possible.
4. The highest probable truth, of the highest possible necessity, is the highest logic possible.
5. The highest probable necessity, of the highest possible logic, is the highest truth possible. ***
6. The highest probable necessity, of the highest possible truth, is the highest logic possible.

Again, so far, so good, these are all true, with #2 and #6 being highest truths possible. Next I’ll list 6 more triadic axioms of math, truth and logic.

1. The highest probable math, of the highest possible truth, is the highest logic possible.
2. The highest probable truth, of the highest possible math, is the highest logic possible.
3. The highest probable logic, of the highest possible math, is the highest truth possible. ***
4. The highest probable math, of the highest possible logic, is the highest truth possible. ***
5. The highest probable logic, of the highest possible truth, is the highest/lowest math impossible. --- i.e., infinity and infinitesimal at the absolutes ---
6. The highest probable truth, of the highest possible logic, is the highest/lowest math impossible. --- i.e., infinity and infinitesimal at the absolutes ---

Finally, we arrive at the ultimate incompletenesses of both math and logic. While four of the above axioms are true, and #3 and #4 are of highest truths possible___there exists no math to process axioms #5 and #6. This has grave meaning for the history of logic. The sets of [truth and logic],[logic and truth] entail math impossibilities, under any rational or irrational math systems, that rationally connect infinity and finity. The math can’t go___and the logic can’t prove___The ultimate truths are P=NP Incomplete. The universe can’t wholly be described without a completed infinity/infinitesimal math and logic integration, thus this proves the incompleteness of math, truth and logic, at the abosolute___As logic ain’t logic without math___Logic less math ain’t logic___It’s Foo-Foo-Land!

At first, logic seems to entail more power than math, yet itself entails ego-omniscience, irrationality and incompleteness, making itself useless alone, as Naked Logic. Naked logic is quite a Trickster, though... Yet, even if I represent infinite and infinitesimal math with symbols X/X=1+IEE(isomorphic extension entanglement), and X/-X=1+IEE(X=finity, or infinity, or infinitesimal as applies), there’s no way for me to connect these formulas rationally to finity, with either isomorphic mappings or any sensible forms of other group, etc., maths, therefore it spells the death nell for Aristotle, Hegel, Frege’s, Russell’s and all analytic philosophy, trying to use S5 modal logics, and other logics and truths, to prove linguistics, semantics, propositions, syntax or whatever. Oh, they may create many more algorithms to improve computer software and robotics operations, but they’ll never achieve their dreamed of AI, as this incompleteness makes it impossible, unless future math can some day bridge the true and absolute infinity/infinitesimal gap, as logic and math separate, at the absolute origin, thus are separate agents within our a priori essense agency. Arithmatic is the only true and prime a priori epistemic agent, when comparing math and logic. Logic is a tool of our epistemic agency, yet the math agent is deeply ingrained within the primary epistemic agent of perception. Why wouldn’t it be, it demensionalizes and geometrizes all our images, even in primary passive visual inductions of.

Peirce tried to warn them all over a hundred years ago, but the world wouldn’t listen. Even after Peirce’s warnings, Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Tarski, Quine and the likes of Chomsky kept marching down this false road of no sensible end. On the other hand, Huygens, Jevons, DeMorgan, Gibbs, Schroder, Peirce, Veblen, Einstein, Keynes, Paul Davidson and others, took the correct path of Always attaching Arithmatic/Math to Logic, to make real world sense. Too bad___Just the way it is…

P=NP Incomplete holds, and arithmatic precedes logic, not only by the above evidence, but by the fact there could never have been any logic in the early universe, as it’s a non-living mass of matter and motion, guided simply by random and chance actions on matter. Ain’t got no human logic, just the combinatoric arithmetic of basic fundamental substance forming first Bose/Einstein condensates, into much, much later galaxies, solar systems and planets with moons, etc, etc, etc…

Aneology___A New Isomorphic Logic

“Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings you conceive the objects of your conception to have. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object.” The pragmatic maxim, C.S. Peirce
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel
"Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein

Aneology is a term I have coined, as Peirce stated about his term, pragmaticism, “ugly enough not to be stolen”, for the purpose of the same. Since everyone stole and corrupted the fundamental meaning of his pragmatism, he had renamed it to the uglier term. Since no-one has heard of Aneology, I’ve deemed it appropriate for my new philosophy of logic, actually a new metaphysics of logic. It’s not actually new, but a new integral eclectic interpretation of the very old philosophies, updated to new and easier understandings. Ane is from Scot etymology/linguistics/semantics, meaning one, thus Aneology is one logic, isomorphically representing all logics, psychologies, intuitionals and spiritualities. I am here stating all philosophies, psychologies, intuitions and spiritualisms can generally be eclectically, morphically integrated through new understandings of our a priori isomorphic arithmetic instincts.

Aneology is a logic of the non-ego, better nature and higher nature unification, as opposed to the orthodox egoistic logic, largely represented by analytical philosophy of recent age, over the last century, having it’s more modern roots in Logical Positivism, yet extending back to Aristotle’s syllogistic logic, and in my view, totally self-discredited since last September’s market and ideological crashes… From my last post, I loosely defined a difference between public non-ego logic and private egoistic logic, from a Peircean perspective, verses, and Wittgensteinean perspective. In this post, I’d like to take it back through its more complex evolution, through its many adherrents, yet only mentioning the main promoters of egoistic logic, as against non-egoistic attempts of developing such a better and more integral logic.

I’m going to start with Gottlob Frege, as this will be more available to manys’ recent memory. I realize most all analytic philosophers think Frege to be the modern founder of the analytic philosophy of logic, and I of course take issue with such a history. The very reason I contest Frege is his very own analysis of fundamental logic, as to being the primary of arithmetic, and all arithmetic developing from such pseudo-primary logic. It is no opinion of mine that arithmatic is primary to logic; it’s a historical fact, when the true inductive sciences are completely studied, as per William Whewell and Florian Cajori, and not the propaganda of Jean Van Heijenoort. Even with all ancient history of the Egyptians, Greeks, Persians and Indians, mathematical logic preceded logic proper. All the sanskrit texts, the cuneiform tablets, and ancient leather and other scrolls record arithmatic preceding logic, thus its true foundation, and Peirce, the true analytical founding father of real arithmetical philosophy and second order logic, certainly verifies these facts clearly recorded in Ernst Shroder’s algebra and the history of Peirce’s logic law, links and symbols used, as do thousands of other mathematicians, true mathematical philosophers, and as do many scientists of the inductive schools, especially the Arabic speaking areas of the early dark ages, on into the early middle ages, when the Byzantine Empire passed the old world knowledge to Europe. I’ll leave the in-depth analyses for later, as history has been very distorted by the Euro-centric views, especially those of Heijenoort.

Next, I’d like to give the early proofs of arithmetic logics creating the early logics, of which could not have existed without the a priori arithmetic instincts pre-existing the later logics. Everyone knows the Egyptians, Indians, Assyrians/Persians, Greeks invented, and or improved, early geometry, with no more than crude compass(most likely string and scribe) and straight edge. The Egyptians built the pyramids with no more than early geometry and the arithmatic developed from it. The early Greeks, Indians and Assyrians did similar feats of construction in their respective areas. The Assyrians had even invented the sexigesimal system of arithmatic some 3700 years ago, yet no separate system of logic has ever been found, that dates this far back. All my and others early era research finds is arithmetical logic first, pre-existing all formal logic systems. Aristotle’s formal `logica docens’ seems to be the first fully organized deductive logic system, yet is it truly a deductive system?

Though Aristotle built a beautiful arithmetic reason based ethics system from Socrates/Plato’s teachings(greatest good, and best order), his formal deductive syllogistic logic system leaves much to be desired, as is easily seen through the many Arabic speaking philosophers and mathematicians having clearly attested, as did Peirce also. I’ll clearly state up-front that Aristotle’s syllogistic logic, and his formal deductive logic system, is based too far away from the arithmetical induction/differentiation, creating his far too egoistic logic systems, thus creating history’s false analogies for a few thousands of years. When logic is deducted away from our basic a priori mathematical instincts, it errs into the egoistic territory, and its attending pseudo-psychological element. This also means there is a fundamental problem with using the word deduction, itself. When we ask of nature if we can truly deduct from her, the fully scientific answer is no___There’s always extension, entailment and entanglement. What I mean is, deduction should be traded for the truer term differentiation, then we have a solid foundation for our reasoning, which deduction does not successfully fully support. We deduct nothing from nature, we differentiate, as the first law of physics(the conservation of matter/energy) controls the absolute truth, and when deduction is used in place of the truer term differentiation, we introduce a fallacy into our logic, before we begin, as Aristotle certainly did, and pseudo-psychology ends controlling such logic, egoistically, far too much. This wasn’t even partially corrected with Newton and Leibniz’s infinitesimal differential calculus, though they had the chance, as neither thought to apply the differentiation term to deductive logic as constructed by Aristotle, and the later support of the Port Royal Logic, even though the Arabic logics had partially done so much earlier. There exist at least twenty sound Arabic critiques of Aristotle’s silly-gistic logic, not counting all the Greek critiques and sceptics of it. False worship of refied systems always plagues the world’s true advances. People seldom see through the fallacies, even long after they have been fully self-discredited.

Now, let’s look at it from a practical point of view; the arithmetic of “The Golden Ratio”, and “The Golden Mean”, as applied through recent Peircean socially rooted logics of liberty, as isomorphically related/mapped to both GR and GM systems. I state that both the GR and the GM can be scientifically used to arithmetically describe, not only liberty’s logic function, but most all social logical functions. Just go to Wikipedia for the clearly represented diagram of the GR, and you can easily follow what procedes. Let the entire diagram represent a universal state of any global nation, or all as the case may be. You see from the diagram how the GR is created with compass and straight edge___that’s all that’s required. Let the mid-section of the entire rectangle represent the GM. The Golden Mean is the morphic/isomorphic representative area of liberty(social contract laws) of any nation, having some semblance of democratic government, and limited free-will. Don’t look for any absolute fixed truths___there are none. Most all truths are eclectically changing truths, and under the GM liberty perspective, are represented as many emerging/evolving/changing truths, on out into some desired future achievement of better liberties within states. “Iff” the balance of liberty, and necessarily limited free-will, stay within the center box, and this box include some fair % of economic incentive, we arithmetically maintain a variably balancing chance of liberty’s success. “Iff” the top bounds of the center box are extended upward, we head toward many differing states of totalitarianism, where the GM liberty is destroyed at its upper bound by the lack of incentive and the absolute power of dictatorship, and “iff” the bottom bounds of the center box are alternately extended downward, we head toward a state of pure communism, where the GM liberty is destroyed by the lack of incentive and the anarchic control of the mob, at its worst case scenario. The first extension of bound is absolute rightest power, and the second extension of bound is absolute leftest power. So, this ancient diagram of the GR and GM can isomorphically represent any true and workable state of liberty, and its unwanted states of nefarious power systems, and any modern mathematician can do the isomorphic mapping math necessary to prove the validity of the model to the formulas of, to any general sense of understanding, which would be more accurate than any present state of political rhetoric. “The Golden Ratio” and “The Golden Mean” offers the modern world one of the most powerful tools for scientific method ever devised, especially when tied to Peirce’s updated ideas. The above means that Kant’s arithmetical liberty isomorphically maps within the GR bounds of the GM. This means liberty is free to move successfully between the GM’s GR’s, and allot the required movements of desired liberty and democratic truths, for a systems sensible survival.

I have already posted, back a few posts, how to use Cartesian graphs to do similar expositions of social contracts and liberty logic functions, over tri-chronic time and space series and places. All this work is very crude, but my notes are too extensive to edit all, and I feel time is crucial, to the needs of the society and world’s survival, for the scientific knowledge necessary to solve our grave problems. At the least, maybe I can add some new model ideas.

Next, let’s take Archimedes’ “Center of Mass” formula; L1*M1=L2*M2, the fulcrum of all balance beams, or most all social balances and imbalances will be the balances and imbalances of aggregates. I am stating the CM formula applies isomorphically through aggregates, best expressed through Plato/Franklin/A.Hamilton/Jevons/Peirce/Veblen/Keynes/Davidson economics. These are models any good mathematical economist or mathematician can map from the CM formula to the conceptual system chosen, whether social contract of laws, or money system of exchanges. Let L=liberty. Let M=money. Consider the formula to figure the aggregate productivity of M=money, and let L=liberty’s degree of freedom. Consider L1 to equal the liberty of the general population of the people, and L2 to equal the liberty of the corporations and businesses. “Iff” properly incentively balanced, as in the GM model of the last paragraph, the society enjoys a sensible form of government, but “iff” either side of Archimedes’ formula tips the balance beam to itself, as the global virtual state of corporations recently has, then all bets for liberty’s survival may be in severe trouble, maybe not in the US per-say, but the pariphery is certainly in severe trouble, to later be reflected back into the US___We can’t escape it, unless we totally count the money and fix the real law problems of severe Archimedesian formula reflected imbalance. He showed us the first truly powerful universal mass formula___We must apply its scientific method___To save ourselves from ourselves.

Now, let’s look at Newton’s 2nd law of motion; F=MA, another universal mass law. Force equals mass times acceleration. This easily isomorphically maps to Irving Fisher’s economic formula; MV=PT, money velocity equals price times transactions, but I’d rather use Newton’s, as it’s a true universal mass/aggregate formula, whereas Fisher’s was originally special case designed, but either will give us the desired results of aggregate credit productivity, as any good economist can attest. As a matter of fact, Fisher wrote the exact debt deflation transactions now taking place, in the last depression era. His work is posted on my macromouse blog. Anyway, Newton’s force law can also isomorphically represent the true value of national and global credit productivity, “iff” all the numbers are collected, and fed in. Just let F=credit productivity, M=money, and A=acceleration. As money acceleration, by the last paragraph’s Archimedes’ CM formula, increases toward the global virtual corporate state, credit productivity decreases to the citizenry trying to support liberty, finally reducing liberty even to the corporations, as is now the case, with the collapse of “The Shadow Banking System”. You see, all these universal formulas seem to isomorphically tell us many true stories of our present predicament. I’ll state, most all universal formulas, especially of mass, can be isomorphically mapped to most all universal models, and real whole systems, potentially giving us the universal inductive proofs, as I’ll next facetiously show.

Einstein’s E=MC^2 can be isomorphically translated to E=efficiency; M=money; C^2=count squared. So, if you want to know the global efficiency of money solution, Count The Damned Money, and Change The Necessary Laws, to Control Money, Back To Balanced Incentivized Liberty!

My hope is the above, and last few posts, may start a path toward showing the viability of a Peircean non-egoistic, inductive arithmetical social logic, over the egoistic, deductive non-arithmetical a-social logics… I have a long way to go to fully formalize my ideas, so let me know what you may think is necessary. I’d be more than happy to discuss openly, anything about independent open systems logic___Anything from spirit to arithmatic, as I truly see it all as one isomorphic thinking process…

The Isomorphic Gates of Perception

“His maxim will be this: 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. " Charles Sanders Peirce

Charles Sanders Peirce was the world’s foremost genius, not only of his time, but of all times___no man or woman stands higher, not even the greats, Archimedes, Newton or Einstein. We could even line up all the world’s greatest philosophers, poets and artists, and none would reach his heights of intellectual and soulful understanding of the entire mechanics of the mind, people and nations, which is all then isomorphically inter-related to the world, and all its systems. The integrative power of his triadically inductive mind has no match. `God’, most of the world’s citizens don’t even understand what a triadic mind is___What a shame.

Since my grandfather attended college in Peirce’s time, and he being America’s premier scientist, then studied by gramps, I and my entire family benefited tremendously early on, by the principles he learned studying this great man, and passed it on to us. Gramps also applied it to business, politics and all his personal, social and family relations, to the end of his days___I thank him for his early teachings, personally to me, as he was a truly talented teacher also, but I now know how much he benefited from attending college when such a seminal character was at the heights of American academics and intellect___Nothing is more obvious to me at the later age of 63___having seriously studied Peirce over the last six years. The links between gramps, my father and mother, extended family and myself, related to Peircean thinking, grow clearer and stronger every day.

Since Peirce was a true epistemologist, I’ve spent the last year thoroughly studying all sources on the subject, to supplement what I’d studied back in the `80’s. And, since he was also a true first rate humanist, scientist, logician and mathematician, I’ve studied most all of them as well, by following all others’ Peircean links, as well as all he mentioned in his many published works, and the partially published micro-films, of much of the only recently published works, by authors such as the Fin, Pietarinen___”Signs of Logic”, an excellent book, by-the-way___A great comparison history between Wittgenstein’s later ideas and Peirce’s thinking___I highly recommend the book. So, I think I’ve earned the right to voice my ideas of the man, and his ideas, as per my personal interpretation of.

Anyone who has studied the historical record will soon discover Peirce to be the least understood of philosopher mathematician scientists, ever to have lived. His ideas have been stolen, corrupted, lied about, absolutely mis-interpreted, castigated, ostracized, ridiculed and out-right banished from the last 100 years of the historical evolution of ideas, to be only quite recently making a proud and strong comeback, due to the lies finally being dis-credited, and many of the world’s militaries and secret services realizing these ideas’ values___Extremely High Values. Peirce’s pragmatic system of thought is a “Scientific Method of Solutions to All Societies Problems”, as it’s a method of, first and foremost, “How to Think”; then maybe people can properly be taught “What to Rightly Think”, as it’s a total system of right thinking___Not required, just right, as in “Right Heartedness, Right Mindedness, Right Action”, the ancient Chinese triadic system of right feeling, thought, and action.

Peirce spoke often in the language of semeiotics, or signs, when he was speaking of perception, cognitions and conceptions. He also spoke often of “logica utens”, or folk logic, normal people’s language, and “logica docens”, or academic logic and the intellectuals’ language, plus the interpreter, which would be perception, in its many guises of “I’s”, as defined by the first pragmatist, Socrates___Knowledge is perception___We see it, we know it. To make this easier to understand we only need to isomorphically, morphically, update, these ideas to “Mother Wit”, “Common Sense”, and “Wisdom Logic”. “Wisdom Logic” can also be stated as “Psychological Wisdom” or “Spiritual Wisdom”, as psychology and spiritualism are easily seen as isomorphic to logic, as logic is simply the a priori mathematical essence of all three, culminating in perception, creating the ability for all of us to realize our best natures, as well as our higher natures. All this has been thoroughly explicated by Jesse Prinz and Phyllis Chiasson, as well as by Pietarinen___I’m just adding the clearer isomorphic links. It’s all a simple path from spiritual, psychological and logical semantics to scientific pragmatic actions, toward clear knowledge___Let’s all eclectically take the true path, and avoid the narrow road of relative pluralism.

All the above is as later Wittgenstein, and Peirce always stated, “Science is just an extension of our basic instincts”. This is to say the “Docens” is built on, and an extension of our basic instinctual “Utens”, and I say is thoroughly isomorphic through our a priori mathematical essence agent___this will require the inductive proofs, which I will leave for another post. Furthermore, I’ve recently discovered many of the “Universal Scientific Laws and Formulas” are thoroughly isomorphic to our universal social systems, especially those of Archimedes “Center of Mass” formula and law of, Newton’s “1st 2nd 3rd Laws of Motion” and Einsteins “Universal Law of Mass E=MC^2”, and can be used as inductive proof systems of. I just don’t wish to explain these all now, as it will make this post too long___later.

Peirce’s original quote at the beginning of this post, “…the gate of perception” is very important in understanding his system. Also, his quote, “logic is rooted in the social principle”, and “the ego and the non-ego”, will make his and anyone’s mind mechanics more easily understood, when thoroughly explained. We all know we perceive, cognize and interpret conceptions, but how does this process actually function? Most would think they have a pretty good idea, but do they? Where does judgment enter the equation? What is the process of a priori essence in relation to logic in self and the social principle? What is the non-ego in relation to the triadic functioning of all thoughts? I can tell you for far too many years, I am guilty of having my logic, judgment and a priori essence all scrambled in the wrong thinking processes and agent areas, but have since by finally understanding Peirce, been able to do the better re-adjustments to thought. If logic and judgment are installed, by our free will choice, in the ego, we are subject to all the faults the mind can easily multiply, especially turning both far too omniscient and other maladies, just as early Wittgenstein did with his first book on logic, and also as Frege did, by thinking logic was the a priori agent of mathematics___nothing could be further from the truth. Wittgenstein later adjusted more to Peirce’s way of thinking, but Frege never lived long enough to be proved wrong by Godel, yet Peirce had it right from the beginning. His non-ego was to realize these dangerous agents of logic and judgment should be more directed to the social habits of others___in other words, the social root of, yet I also must recognize the a priori mathematical guide of both, as well as the social habits of the cultures. Peirce never denied this, but never stated it so either, yet we must recognize it as a fact, since logic and judgment are initially of our essence agents. It’s just how we direct the will to use these tools, and that’s all they are is tools, of the mind. By directing them more to the social function of the people’s cultural habits, we reduce the size of our egos and increase the function of our intelligence___Other is always larger and superior to our little egos. The non-ego should have priority over the ego___It’s easy to accomplish by just redirecting the will of “I” perception, to the non-ego social functions of logics and judgments.

“…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." No better quote has ever been written about the mechanics of perception, a simpler one maybe by Machaivelli, “All men have eyes, but few have the gift of perception”, but not as to the point of its mechanics. The history of perception has been one long argument between deductive and inductive logic, broken stride only by Peirce’s third, the triad of induction, deduction and abduction, or as I have re-interpreted it from Prinz as transduction. It’s just easier to see it as a transductive process, i.e., essence agents exchanging information many times over to settle our ideas and concepts of. Of course when applying it to Peirce’s historical abduction, of how to make our histories clear, then abduction may be the better word to retain, but as to all mechanics taking place inside perception, transduction is the easier system to know. All agents, in order to make concepts and ideas clear, exchange information of the object under investigation by thought, and best accomplished through the public domain integral of habits of the people, of our culture, and all the world’s culture’s. The larger the scope, the more true to the universal truth. I think semantics can only be truly investigated through the pragmatics of the public domain, in relation to self and other, and not by simple a priori logics and or modal logics and semantic game theories. Yes, the latter must be done for AI and computerized web networks, etc., but as to personal knowledge, I say it’s the wrong path of investigation, and Peirce certainly agreed. Nothing can replace humans being human___Intuitively human.

The argument goes that perception is a deductive process, verses an inductive process. Well, I simply ask, “If it’s deductive, where’d the first information within perception come from?” As I adhere to Socrates and Locke’s blank slate mind at birth, and Socrates adhered to the blank slate all his life, possibly because the Oracle set him up by stating, “Socrates is wiser than all the gods.” Anyway, the other side says universal grammar is a primary a priori essence agent, but if so, why no universal verbal language? We have a universal arithmetic language, as all nations math is universally understandable to all, but language/semantics is not, Why? I think Chomsky should thoroughly re-study Peirce’s “universal grammar” to see what it really means___It’s just what we all possess of common ground inductions from birth, Chomsky! Not your stolen ideas’ corruption of Peirce’s original meanings, even though you did read them___Wrongly, I might add.

Now, is perception an inductive or deductive process, first? Is the whole super-consciousness of the entire world in our minds from birth? Do we all see in our minds how to be expert neuro-surgeons? Do we all see in our minds how to be genius atheletes, chemists, biologists? Why, all we have to do is deduct from this universal grammar of Chomsky’s! I think not___It’s a blank slate at birth, except for it’s a priori instinctual senses, math potential abilities, dimensional potential abilities, geometrical potential abilities, etc., yet no universal grammar, as these all precede grammar’s emergent evolution, whether present new-born, or pre-historic civilization learning to count fish to feed a family of five, arithmetic precedes language, or any universal grammar___As then, so now. As soon as the baby opens its eyes, it’s passively inducting the scenery present. It’s deducing it’s hungry possibly, even before opening its eyes, but that’s essence agent instinct eternal in all living creatures. As to deduction verses induction, I think all would have to admit induction is by far the larger process all our lives, as passive perception takes more gigs of memory than any word system, which is also inducted in from our surroundings. I’ll take Locke’s intelligence over Chompsky’s any day, as it’s also in line with my own common sense and hard won knowledge.

A further point of perception’s inductions over deductions as to the mind’s major function, how could we deduct from the whole and end with universal answers? Deduction is always away from wholes and to parts. Only induction is from wholes and parts to wholes. It’s just simple mathematical mechanics. Though deduction is absolutely required in all inductive and abductive/transductive processes, deduction isn’t alone in developing intelligent action for the mind. Induction and abduction play the major roles. Just think about Archimedes, Newton and or Einstein. Their thinking involved major uses of all three systems, yet induction and abduction are the only creators of new thoughts and ideas, as new ideas require addition, and deduction is subtraction, or negative addition, thus all new ideas are either induction or abduction, since deduction always subtracts from the whole. Induction and abduction add to the thus far known whole, as did Archimedes, Newton and Einstein. All three developed entirely new additions to the universal book of knowledge, with their universal mass formulas___that required universal abductions and inductions first___Basic new ideas, from the real objective external universal observations of the whole, in different integral views.

This is just another post in my ongoing thinking about the wisest man in the world. When enough of us dummies on this mixed up planet learn how to think, then maybe a few can delve deeper into Peirce’s economics, to see how his thinking greatly influenced economics through his student Thorstein Veblen and John Maynard Keynes probability math thinking, leading to his great economic breakthroughs. Then maybe we could start listening to the world’s living updated Keynes, smartest global economist___Prof. Paul Davidson… Link

Tri-Chronic Dimensional Geometric Logic, and Tri-Chronic Spatial Perception…

“Logic is rooted in the social principle.” Charles Sanders Peirce

“No man can communicate the smallest item of information to his brother-man unless they have … common familiar knowledge; where the word `familiar’ refers less to how well the object is known than the manner of knowing … Of course, two endless series of knowings are involved.” C.S. Peirce

(Note: Please excuse the ego in this post. Just trying to get new ideas on the web to protect copyrights)

Is there any reason in 2008 we should be held hostage of individual knowledge, by the modern advancement of technology, complexity and computerization of our financial systems? Should, “We the people”, be treated good and bad by the history of capitalism’s evolution, at differing times through history? What is it exactly, that causes our wealth and poverty cycles? Can this question be truthfully and logically answered?

I say, “It can”, but it will take a journey you probably have not expected, to explain it. Recent readings in the field of philosophy, semantics and pragmatism have convinced me to take an alternative look at political economics, through the eyes of some of histories greatest minds, such as Socrates, Plato, Christaan Huygens, Euler, Locke, Kant, Tom Paine, Alexander Hamilton, Peirce, Veblen, Einstein, Wittgenstein, Keynes, Paul Einzig, John Nash, S. Hawking, Jaakko Hintikka, Paul Davidson and Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. Veiws I held no more than three months ago are gone, having been replaced by the inductive logic in the above title, which I discovered over some three years ago, yet only worked up recently. This new logic is in line with the above thinkers, yet includes my extensions. I intend to present this below, yet only in its bare semantic form, as I believe the world needs simpler explanations than academics has thus far treated them. After a brief summary of the above thinkers, leading to my ideas, I’ll fully lay out the above mentioned tri-systems of logic and perception.

My thought is founded in a life of economics, physics and philosophic study. Through the years I’ve found Plato to be the most valuable of the ancients, even though I do like Heraclitus, and do respect Aristotle’s ethics, but as to epistemic validity, Plato wins `hands down’ to me. It’s only Plato who can fit the modern ideas of triadic logics’ semioses, as espoused first by Charles Sanders Peirce, at the turn of the end of the 19th century. Only Plato’s mind line, A, D, B, C, E offers a similar structure as laid out by Peirce, yet not fully interpreted then, as Peirce later would, yet a full interpretation of Plato, into its triadic dynamics of common grounds, the abstract scientifics of forms and archetypes, and “noesis” clearly relates very closely to Peirce’s triadic systems of semantics and pragmatics. At least I have no problem seeing the links. All one needs realize is, the forms of thought and archetypes are not the exaggerated idealisms most of academics have thought, for far too many centuries___It’s simple scientific abstractions of what Kant called the `space that moves lines’ in the mind, when using abstract thought. It’s the reality of the mind mechanics, of how simple abstraction necessarily works.

Before I proceed, I’ll give a few examples. Just imagine a room full of seats as in an auditorium. In this room sitting in one corner is you, and say 20 seats to your left and 20 in front, squared. Now, close your eyes and imagine a solid steel basketball suspended in mid-air. With your mind’s abstract imagination, move the ball up and down, then toss it to the corner left seat. Now to the further left front seat and back to yourself, and catch it, then levitate it. This is all possible in abstract imagination, but how are you moving the ball? With what? This is the profound idea Whitehead, I believe, discovered about Kant’s theorizing. Our intuitive will is actually capable of manipulating internal space___photons? Now, to make the point further, imagine a neoprene golf ball in the same scenario. Take the heavy solid steel basketball and merge/morph it inside the golf ball, without the golf ball increasing in size. That is a representation of isomorphic quantum physics, which is beyond the scope of this article, but the mind can accomplish such feats___Yet How? I’ll leave this for later, as I’m only trying to put your mind in inter-relational order, to relay the logic information of this article…

Next, I’d like to take up Descartes’ synthetic doubt, as that’s clearly all it was, yet it still has many major philosophers arguing over him. The separation of mind and body is the greatest piece of meditation non-sense I’ve ever come across, that’s been put across as something rational to think about, when there’s actually no rationality there___possible. Just think about it, how would one think without a body/brain to store perception’s necessary actions for mind to think? Where would the physical given of thought rest without the necessary brain’s memory storage areas, as we know these physically exist in the brain, which modern medicine’s neuro-scientific tests have proven, to think with? What is a mind without a brain? Do you see my point yet? One way or the other, it’s pure meta-physical nonsense, and this is not to criticize metaphysics, per say, as I have nothing against people’s desired beliefs. There may be some separation between brain and mind functions, as I do admit this also, but there’s no total or real separation, as one can’t function without the other. Just think about it again, “What’s a mind going to think about, without any physical reality? Zero? Nothing? Na da?” The black zone got no thoughts___period! So, let the skeptics have their non-sense…

Now, let’s look at someone more sensible like Huygens and Euler, the great mathematicians of early probability logic and combinatorics/calculus/algebra formula simplifications, since they didn’t delve into the synthetic metaphysical as far as Descartes did. Without the foundations of modern math resting on these two giants, and the three Arabic actuators and transmitters, Al-Khwarizmi, Avicenna, Biruni and others’ additions to the Greeks, Persians and Egyptians, we’d all look rather foolish. Yes, maybe others would have come along, but that’s pure speculation, and Huygens’ probability laws would be highly prejudiced against such views, IMO. Without Huygens and Euler, we may never have had a genius like J. Gibbs inventing statistical probability mechanics and vector mathematics, then Maxwell would have been put off for years, as well as Boltzman, Planck and Einstein, then where would we be? Some may say better off, but that’s naive. From Huygens and Euler I’ve been able to use X/X for representing completely new understandings of universal entropy and equilibrium, which works extremely well for economics central choice axiom(SCM, which requires extensive dynamic updating), and logic’s central choice axiom, of indifferent necessity choice___More on this later when I get up to Hintikka and Pietarinen.

I do have a scientific method to my madness, believe it or not, and it’s stated in the first quote at the beginning of this paper, “Logic is rooted in the social principle.” Charles Sanders Peirce. As a matter of fact, all my thinking is grounded in Peirce’s thought and logic processes, especially his classification architecture, along with my 40 years experience working in logic tables, but I do give credit to many other greats of history, especially those mentioned in the second paragraph. Plato, Paine and Hamilton figure greatly in my reasoning of sorting the realities involved between the “Semantic Web”, and the “Pragmatic Web” evolving into a “Knowledge Web”, or S-Web -> P-Web -> K-Web, as per Pietarinen. IMO, Plato and A. Hamilton are the two earliest greatest economists, as I have mentioned in previous posts, and America’s democracy may not even have been possible without Paine’s contributions to the S-Web and P-Web, of the times, which has greatly contributed to the nation’s and the world’s long march toward a possible and desired universal non-violent liberty. Barach Obama put it best, “The creed written into our founding document declares our destiny”. Without the work of Tom Paine, we may never have had a country to enjoy such privileges, as his pamphlets were read aloud in many towns, by a town crier, since many could not read. This is one of history’s greatest examples where the semantic web(if I’m allowed to be so liberal with meaning) contributes to the pragmatic web of our and the entire world’s reality, and it was all greatly made possible by one man, yet most of academics wants to forget the greatness of this powerful common man, of “Common Sense”. I can’t. I give him the credit due, yet without the perspicacious mind of Hamilton to follow, we’d have been a sad economic basket-case. BTW, you’ll find much the similar semantic style in the “Federalist Papers” where written by Hamilton(Plubius), as used by Paine.

The next two important men in my evolution are Peirce and his student T. Veblen, and I might mention why all these men I’m crediting are as great as they are___They were all of great eclectic inductive intellects and had other wide ranging interests, as well. That’s why such others not on my list are not credited, as they are all particularists, and I choose the universalists over the particularists, as the mind works best outside-in, first, and not inside-out, first, as many may want, i.e., induction over deduction. Though Aristotle and Kant make my list, as does Wittgenstein, as he was the first to mention “diachronic logic”, which plays a very important place in the history of logic. Though I’d roughly formed tri-chronic logic from reading Peirce, I fully grounded it after reading about Wittgenstein’s diachronic logic in Pietarinen, just last month, and then developed it further to include tri-spatial perception. Pietarinen’s statement, “semantics is parasitic on pragmatism over time”, or there abouts, also greatly contributed to the grounding abilities for my own tri-systems of thought. So, I thank all these great minds whose shoulders I stand on, and especially thank Wittgenstein for his clearness of logic views, even if at times, a bit over-strict and omniscient. Jaakko Hintikka also plays heavily in my thinking as he also is a lifelong student of Peirceian thought, and was the main professor Pietarinen studied and looked up to, as near as I can tell. Hintikka’s thought is profound, especially as relates to working on founding further logic progress on a proper method of scientific questioning, which is exactly what Peirce stated, more than 100 years ago. I also think his modal logic is more sound than Kripke’s, as to S-5, which I will later show how to prove with better social grounding, as per Peirce, using Euler through Einstein and Hawking. Our scientific progress is in the proper formation of the questions, just as Socrates stated in Plato’s works.

I am going to be controversial and state that John Locke’s “blank slate mind” is true, and not only for how we are born, but as is through-out our lives. That’s right___the mind is a blank slate. It has perception and logic agents and self-agency, but as to content, it draws all content into itself, from either outside or inside, from brain state agents and memory storage states, by way of the passive and active will, which is no more than our instinctual intuitive spirit, most likely housed in the reptilian brain stem, and connected from its three lobes, to the three lobe cerebellum, by the trigeminal nerve, which branches into the two halves of the brain___the mind/brain connections. BTW, both my wife and C.S. Pierce have and had trigeminal neuralgia, a very serious nerve injury, thus I’ve studied this function extensively, as my wife has suffered with it for over four years. Further I’ll state the most controversial idea of all, rationality does not exist in the mind___rationality is a brain state agent, most likely in the cerebellum, and must always be inducted/inferred into perception. This is the great mind/body problem solved, iff one simply realizes the entire agency of self must have two a priori agents, in order for one to question, and the other to answer___Reason asks the questions, and logic answers___In other words the mind answers the brain, and all reason and logic must be inducted/inferred in. If this doesn’t make sense, I don’t know what does.

Now, how does perception and logic function? Most would think, and most do think that logic, the knowing agent, does the thinking___Well it does do most of the higher order thinking, but not all by self-choice. If we first look at perception, we can better understand the knowing agent of epistemic logic. Just as Peirce stated, “Logic is rooted in the social principle”, and I couldn’t agree more. We know the common ground of being is the natural given___by this I simply mean we all see a tree, a bird, a house, a person or whatever, of the real ground of nature and man. When we first open our eyes from birth this perception process starts, is neutral/passive, and unstoppable if our eyes are open, and then stores these images in the memory storage areas of the brain, for later retrieval by the will. This is the natural common ground of all brain and mind states. It comes from both bio-nature and geo-universe as the equilibriated ground of all beings. I don’t think anyone would argue with the balance of the universe and nature___I sure can’t make that any better, and neither do I for a minute think anyone can, in its pre-human natural state. The problem with logic, looked at in perception, only starts with man first digging his way into Earth’s crust. This is where reason first starts questioning perception, and logic is necessarily required to answer___it’s just the dialogical necessity of brain/mind mechanics. So, when there’s conflict with nature, recognized by perception, reason and logic, brain and mind, must start co-operating to resolve the differences and dis-agreements of perception, as all logic is, is proper knowing___Proper Seeing, i.e., basic a priori perceptual instinct. Whether perception and logic are individual epistemic agents or not is beyond my ability to fully know, without self-deception entering the equation, even though I’ve studied all the models of perception and logic from all the different schools of epistemic philosophy, and my inner self-investigations. I see no reason why perception can not be logic, as a singleton. There’s just nothing else needed for the mind to know, as knowing is simply seeing the total triadic picture of tri-chronic logic and tri-spatial perception, which I’ll explain shortly. To me, it’s just logically necessary for perception to honor nature’s natural equilibriums, if it’s going to respect itself, and be responsible to finding the scientific truth of the agents and world epistemic agency, through the final semantics and pragmatic equilibrium, in future total knowledge, or our “ought” models of. If the will feeds perception/logic the proper images and ideas, true/false, good/bad, reason and logic dialogically can do their job, though logic does, at the same time, have the central choice to be dishonest___the Trickster element. But, if one is trying to be scientific, and abide by the method of responsibility and honesty to self-truth, perception/logic will by necessity, just as Hintikka has tried to prove with modal logic, yet unsuccessfully, so far, IMO, function necessarily honestly, when sense and reason ask it to do so___first order math and logic has never failed me yet, and I don’t expect it to. Yet with these pieces of information, and what’s to come, Hintikka may be able to prove his S-5 modal logic better.

Finally, to wrap this all up, here is the technical explanation of tri-chronic logic and tri-spatial perception. I’ll take the hardest unsolved problem in philosophy, morality, and prove its social scientific validity. I’ll also prove the necessary validity of the axiom of choice. I’ll further still prove the equilibrium axiom, X/X. All will be proved with tri-system Peirceian thinking, semantics, pragmatics and future empirical probability models of. Morality is based on the inter-subjective pre-personal analyzing of self in relation to other, in self-reflection. This requires deep self-reflective reasoning and logic semantics and dialogues. This is private language, just as Wittgenstein described it, and not accessible to outside investigation, but we all know we do just this, yet a first basis outside knowledge of this process can be represented by my wife’s quote; “Morality is as you see others morally see you.” That is an entirely objective observation of personal judgment, yet still a private language. Thus, we must observe a larger function of morality, in society, to have something tangible to, at the least, use primitive logic and math(least and greatest magnitudes) on. This is where we must use Peirce’s social principle of logic, which exhibits itself in our habits, which are publicly obvious and scientifically observable, thus mathematizable, even if with primitive math, as it’s all I need for this short paper. Everyone knows primitive maths are convertible to higher order Jevons, Peirce and Keynes’ probability maths and logics.

So far, we have a Wittgensteinian diachronic process we can install in the perception/logic agent, and have the separate epistemic agents of reason and logic dialogue about. The reason it’s diachronic is I’m using two different time periods of social moral action, and two different spatial areas___past and present. The reasoning agent also has access to the perception/logic agent. They function as the agency of brain/mind cooperation/transduction, even when reason, passions or any sense agent may be in conflict with perception/logic. In order to make this model a tri-chronic process of both logic/perception, we’ll need a three time-place event. Thus the model I’ll install in perception/logic is “past-present-future”, which is both time and place triadic specific, thus tri-chronic and tri-spacial. With a model of “was, is and ought” we can clearly see the dynamics of social moral function. First, I’ll have to convert/update morality to logic by simply renaming it in two ways, “The greatest comparative good for all concerned”, i.e., as to health and security”, and Plato’s “Best order of things”. Using these two simplicitors allows us to compare periods and places of moral social history, by using a simple Cartesian graph of +’s and –‘s on an x, y, c graph. Let the diagonal axis c, be the universal and natural balances of ground given system’s qualities, and the vertical axis x, be quantities, of man based moral actions. Also let the horizontal axis y, be time and place. That should be simple enough for explanation.

Next, let me state that morality can be time and place mathematically compared, as a social function over history and place/space. The functions are “greater good” and “best order”. Now, just ask, “Was woman treated better or worse in the past, compared to the present, and how might she be treated in the future, as based on a non-violent liberty function, and a future model of “ought?” This can be easily graphed with history’s existing database of facts and figures, thus mathematically axiologizing morality, in general terms, as to personal treatment. I’ve graphed this out elsewhere, and it’s a no-brainer___Woman was treated mathematically worse and more unfair in the past compared to today, and most likely will be treated better still in the future, "iff", the ought model holds for “greater good/best order”, which logic can accomplish, if it wishes, once the copula of the semantics web and the pragmatic web are breached, which this math and model does, by the linking copula being the inductive math proofs. The math works, for this model of tri-chronic logic and tri-spatial perception, and produces its proof by linking subjective sematic evolutional sense and actions, with objective pragmatic mathematical observations and facts. Also, other concepts such as responsibility, epistemic security, epistemic truth can be plugged in, in place of morality, to socially prove logic’s extended function mathematically, rationally and empirically___The Triadic Proof___X/X=1+E.(E is extension)

Next is the axiom of choice. Without the axiom of choice, the excluded middle in most logics, we couldn’t install a “was, is and ought” model in intuitive perception/logic, and we couldn’t use our basic natural instinctual a priori primitive logic to do the tri-chronic logic and tri-chronic perception semantical dialogics necessary to even describe this model’s function, yet I just have. Even though I’m only using diachronic logical math to do the actual graph’s pragmatic outputs, I could not have reasoned it out dialogically without the extended capacities of my Peirce type thought processes, therefore, the axiom of choice(and/or inductive intuitive included middle) is absolutely necessary in extended type logics, or un-restricted inter-relational first order logics, as Hintikka has stated, to solve society’s present complex problems. For, without scientific tri-chronic and tri-spatial models of logic and perception, we are intellectually handicapped, un-necessarily so. Peirce, Hintikka and Pietarinen are correct, and modern linguistics and logic studies are in need of serious updating, to the old, tried and true, Peirceian wisdom-visions___wisdom logic.

Next is the equilibrium axiom, X/X and also X/-X=1+EE, representing infinity divided by and to the true fundamental infinitesimals of total state space decay. The first formula comes from Euler, yet I’ve found a mathematical method for proving its value and validity, for economics and physics, if not many other fields of study, in an entirely new way. If we take Einstein’s formula E=MC^2, and convert it to E=F^tdC^2, where F is finity, and td represents total universal finite decay to its final state, if taken far enough over universal time and space, as per Stephen Hawking’s 10^137 years for total universal radiation decay, we are left, according to physics’ conservation law, “Matter and energy can never be destroyed, only converted”, then we have a final elemental matter/energy product/substance, of e/m waves, or photons, in the absolute entropy state of X/X equilibrium, which actually extends to X/X=1+E at absolute zero. This just happens to be an absolute scientific theoretical fact___Oxymoron? No. Just run a theoretical universal model backwards, with Whitehead’s 9 categorial obligations of quantum wave motion, and you have the reforming(Plato’s forms and archetypes of thought) of a new universe, iff, far enough out in infinity wave motion is most near still, then by the laws of quantum physics, it is thus required to be hydrodynamic___The Prime Mover. In order to understand total re-forming of X/X=1+EE(extension/entanglement) matter/energy, one only needs the known laws of quantum motion from random motions to uniform motions, and std. model physics laws, as they always apply to the entire universe, of all known and possibly knowable models. The implications for this are profound for physics’ models of our universe, but I’ll leave that for another time…

None of these three ideas, plus many others not mentioned, would have been possible without the extentions of dyadic logic and perception, to triadic logic and perception, or tri-chronic perception/logic, however you want it. The final word is that logic/perception can just as easily function triadically, just as Charles Sanders Peirce long ago tried to inform the world, and not only can it___It does!

Perception Is Seeing/Knowing/Wisdom…

How can I state this simply? Perception is nothing more than seeing, understanding and knowing, in its barest, and in it most essential states___It is pure mind. What is its barest state architecture and mechanics? Let’s speculate an answer. We know it produces geometrical representations, so it’s a geometricizer. We know it produces 3-D representations, so it’s a dimensionalizer. We know from Einstein the universe has four fundamental forces, so there’s two more, as these two may be represented as electro-magnetic and gravitizing. The next two forces are the strong and weak nuclear forces, and could easily fill the necessary positions of perception’s most complex quantum mechanics isomorphic friction and ergodicity, to further help the geometricizer and the dimensionalizer form representations, then we’d have a fully working mechanical perception system, self-sufficiently functioning. Of course, this is just a model, but it’s a highly possible model. Just close your eyes and picture a triangle, a square, a circle, etc., and watch how quick they form, and how quick you can resize them, or zoom them, then picture a red `72 GTO and try doing the same thing, without changing images. Use the same image and resize and zoom in and out with it. Is it as easy as the triangle, etc.? Why? Why not?

The world of academic and analytic philosophy has long assumed knowledge to be more complex than simple perception, but is it Really? When we travel back to Socrates’ dialogues in many of Plato’s works, we find knowledge to be admittedly no more than perception, so let me see if I can convince you it is no more than simple/complex perception, and nothing more. In recent years Jesse Prinz has written, “Beyond Appearances: The Content of Sensation and Perception”, which entirely agrees with my ideas of perception, and that is that all sense and perception can be represented entirely in perception. This is also in agreement with Socrates ideas, and many recent epistemologists, especially many female epistemologists. So why has the academic world so exaggerated the simple Ockham’s razor?

The most recent global debate is about “reification”, which isn’t really being related to perception, but since all knowledge applies to perception, it easily fits as a starting point of discussion. If we reify all our social and cultural belief systems, then why not apply reification to perception? I am going to. Due to the debate between the Bachtin Circle and the Habermas Groups, and others, centering attention on reification of each’s ideas, I’ll extend the debate to the reification processes that affect the perception and epistemological debates. All the differences over the last 2400 years are due to nothing but turning abstract speculations into pseudo-concrete beliefs, which is none other than reification, and is no more than the original abstract speculations, whether of Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Hume, Habermas, Chompsky or others. It’s all classed as reification, if not fully grounded in logic, math and empirical experimental evidence.

Omniscient abstract speculations are no closer to the truth than was ancient mythology, as it can easily be refuted. Just try to think of something concrete, subjective or objective, that is not, or can not be represented in perception___I say it’s not possible, whether cognition, understanding, knowledge, wisdom, objects or any senses___We only know it all in perception, and we can know it no other way, just as Jesse Prinz has so aptly shown, and Socrates so long ago stated. All perception is inductive mechanics, either from the outside world first, then from memory storage areas second, and nothing more than inducted, deducted and transducted, back and forth between our perception and brain agents, by imaginations, epiphanies, metaphors, analogies, intuitions, hypotheses, or whatever else one wishes to induct into the total processes of abduction, as Peirce so long ago stated, and named it.

Perception___You want ground? Look at it. It’s the first universal ground of stars, galaxies, planets, moons, plasma clouds, etc., and second Ol’ Mother-Earth, nature, Mother-Wit and Common Sense___That’s it___That’s all… These grounds hold the original first matters, motions, mechanics, maths, geometries, equilibriums, ergodicities, isomorphicities, dimensions, greatest and least magnitudes, combinatorics, balances, best orders of things, what-ever___What more could we ask A-Priori logics, maths and laws to be founded in…? “You perceive the Firsts___You quench your Thirsts…” We realize we induct these in first, passively and necessarily, if we but open our eyes, and 90% of the perception/knowledge/wisdom battle is already won. The rest follows first inductions, and only final inductions will solve the, yet unsolved, universals and particulars…

The above isn’t to suggest perception is not a complex organ, as it is the most complex organ in the entire body. When one realizes all sense and intellectual mind functions must take place within perception, and also realizes the number of sense, reasoning and logic agents within the brain/mind complex, plus the entire differential/integral isomorphic actions of all these agents, sometimes functioning simultaneously, one quickly realizes the true power of perception___No number of computers on Earth can compare. This is one of the reasons Peirce had so much trouble developing a workable dialogical interpretation of said processes. Just think, the only man in the world, at the time, embarking on an entirely new path of triadic understanding, interpretation and exposing his scientific findings to a world of settled reified beliefs___Sort of like the American Indians finally coming to the realization, after it was too late, they had to trade their bow and arrows, for guns. No more difficult task exists than developing out of settled beliefs and habits of the given social contract, as the Indians prove, yet he achieved it, but only to be fully interpreted 100 years later, when all he was trying to accomplish was a new interpretation of simple and complex perception, and really little more.

Just think about it, can any of us step above this settled concrete power of the highly established academic views? I’d just like to state my interpretation of Peirce’s views about simple and complex perception… Abduction is the interpreter/action/agent of the transductions, of inductions and deductions, as a triadic system of simple and complex perception, all the while being all three in one. The aducer/abducer is always the interpreter/perception, whether operating in sense, reason or logic, as well as are sense, reason and logic as they morph and isomorphically change and trade places, in and out of perception, the true seat of all seeing, knowing and wisdom. This is why the triadic perception of “I” is so hard to sensibly describe, with any form of critical reason or logic. The transductive “I” perception is the interpreter/translator of induction and deduction into, away from, and back to abduction, “Mother-Wit” and “Common Sense”. Abduction is the triadic repeating processes of the many transductions between induction and deduction, before final inductions into the “Public Sphere”, either by hand, pen or tongue, as there is no other possible pragmatic action into the Public Sphere, except that famous “Ol’ Induction”. Deduction, transduction and abduction only take place within the mind, yet “Ol Induction” is everywhere___omnisciently existing___when thought, used, heard or spoken…

The simple absolutely grounded proof of the above is the overly obvious empirical evidence of all the world’s empires___Rise and Falls. It’s always emergent evolutionary induction up, and devolutionary deduction down. The wealth, intelligence and growth in and up, and the wealth, intelligence and growth out and down. Also, look at the last forty years analogies of America down and China up, etc., yes, there’s been fictitious wealth growth in America, but my analogy applies to real physical and sustained growth. There’s no larger proof of good induction, and bad deduction, on the face of the Earth, and if you don’t like the analogies, I suggest you update your understandings of the “Social Contracts” and the “Public Sphere”___as you can do nothing but induct into the “Public Sphere”, even if you try to offer a deduction___the deduction must always be inducted in___First___No deduction in is possible.

Exact Intuitional Perception Induction Logic

From the earliest times of antiquity the world’s greatest thinkers have puzzled over mastering the exact mechanics and proofs of induction, deduction and intuition. As I mentioned above, Socrates/Plato came the closest, the earliest, in its clearest explication, culminating in “Noesis” and “Perception”. We next pick it up in Eudoxas, Archimedes, Appolonius, then the Arabs Diophantus, Al-Khwarizmi, Biruni and Avicenna, on into the European Continent through Adalard, DeVinci, Vives, Whewell and many, many more, yet it was Scotus and Ockham who achieved anything close to Socrates/Plato’s induction explication of mind, even though there are shortcomings in their early thought, they are still well worth the read. Socrates clearly stated knowledge was perception, thus mind was perception to him, as it is interpreted by myself and many modern epistemologists, but I must explain this deeper for you to see and accept my analysis.

I’ll first state the exact mechanics of perception/mind is the intuitive mechanics of 1st, induction/logic, 2nd, deduction/reason, and 3rd, intuition/abduction, and intuition is the same and similar mechanics as abduction, which Peirce explained through his system of semioses and signs. By substituting these three terms we can be much less complicating in the explanation of said mechanics. Ground state observations are always first state inductions, passive and active choices. Analytics of these inductions is most always, secondly, deductions of the first ground state. Thirdly, all triadic transductions of inductions and deductions is intuitive/abductive. These intuitive processes are both passive background natural state processing and active choice state processing of inductions, deductions, stored memory state inductions, deductions, and visions, metaphors, hypotheses, epiphanies, senses, intellectual memory states, of which all are transducted in and out of perception by passive and active will and intuition. Judgment acts deductively on the above said transactions, yet the over-all mechanics is conducted by our intuitional being, The “I” self of perception, and not as Wittgenstein stated, that we needn’t worry about the “I” self, yet it is the central processor of all inductions, deductions and intuitions, whether passive or active, so far more important than Wittgenstein stated. Exactly, there is no set state space where perception, or any epistemic agent must be housed, as perception agency and all its agents can transduct to all areas of each, yet most of the time all act within the over-arching perception, the head master processor of mind/brain state spaces, and may always be in perception, as my investigations can not penetrate the central mechanics, absolutely positively. This is why it’s always been so hard to describe successfully, whether by abduction, cognition, logic, reason, psychology or whatever, the clearest rendition of total actions. The all self “I” can be everywhere, all at once, within either the mind or brain, and all its agents can also(Peirce’s complex sign semioses), yet we neurologically know perception to be the largest neural network of the brain, wired most everywhere. Basically, as I’ve stated earlier, the agent/tool, reason, asks the questions, and logic answers the questions, yet the complexities of the transc(i)ndence of the repeating transductions between perception agency and its agents can be quite an extended process, to achieve exact thinking results, which we induct back out into the public sphere, or store in our many memory storage state spaces. We do know where perception is physically located, but I do not know the capacities of the isomorphic photonic and other em(electro-magnetic wave/particles) motion state capacities, as to inter-changing locations within mind/perception/brain state spaces. I just know the facts of what happens, generally, within perception, and believe all agents exist in the periphery of the perception neural net, when not in use, as I can always see them when specifically ascribing them to the center of perception. We can only know we do change state spaces of agency and agents, just as Peirce described it with abduction and his semioses of signs. It’s just easier to describe the actions with the agents of logic, reason and intuition perceptionally functioning through the repeating transductions of this central triad.

Now, you may ask how do I know all this? Sixty years of study and personal experience and scientific testing of results, by myself and thousands of other authors, confirms my results. The proofs of inductions has been attested to by authors since Archimedes, with his “center of mass” induction proofs by algebraic and mathematical geometric and calculus results, to modern day inductionists such as Huygens, Euler, Bolzano, Whewell, DeMorgan, Jevons, Peirce, Einstein, Veblen, Brouwer, Keynes, Cajori, Davidson and many, many more, who proved their initial inductions with inductive results. These all used forms of empirical probability math(non-Beyesian insurance probability plus others) and actual empirical evidence to prove their inductions. I also use initial or other discovered or intuited inductions to prove all my inductions, and also accept deductions and intuitionistic math and logic, and some classical math and logic, in the interim stages of intuitive transductions, of the initial inductions and deductions, to solve scientifically for all my ideas. I lean heavily on the scientists and mathematicians of all ages and nations, to achieve satisfactorily exacting answers. As to the above mind mechanics results, it’s all in correspondence with uniting math’s many enjoyable puzzles, of its many isomorphic, morphic and ergodic maths, plus many geometries, algebras and calculi, logics, and over forty+ years of intense inner self-investigation, then uniting that with all life’s experiences, maths, logics and studies of. This is only a general rough summary of my most recent ideas, which I will elaborate on in the coming months, to show a new path into global self-understanding of economics’ realities and solutions…

Intuitional perception is the isomorphic agent between the sense agents, and rational and logical agents. Intuition can be and is both, emotional and logical mind/brain state spaces’ agent. Emotional and folk-wise, it functions fine as “logica utens” and as the scientific intellect, it functions fine as “logica docens.” Both uses are completely, eclectically, compatible. We as a human culture are bound to the necessary contractual responsibility of self, to the natural law of logical, mathematically proven, inductive intuitive liberty, “iff” we wish to survive___This is simply a logical, empirical, inductive and deductive observation…

As I’ve stated before, it all comes down to personal Choice, and I choose to install my fundamental intuitive perceptual “Self-I” in natural “Mother-Wit” and “Common Sense”. It’s simply up to all of us to choose to install the natural “Self-I” in the agent/agency we are most comfortable operating from, but we should all, foremost, realize we do have such a “free-choice”. If we wish, we may operate from our souls, spirits, emotions, compassions, empathy, ego, reason, intellect, logic or any other perceptual agent available to us___It’s entirely a matter of Choice… I only have one suggestion; that everyone install the self-operation of judgment, from one’s better nature, and install the self-operation of one’s intellect, from one’s higher nature, then maybe, we could all get along better…

I hope this makes my analogies of Peirce’s thought clearer. If not, e-mail me at: lloyd.gillespie@gmail.com