*“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…

## No comments:

Post a Comment