Imagination___There’s More to `Utens’ Than First Meets the Eye…

Abduction As An Aspect of Retroduction, Phyllis Chiasson

Charles Sanders Peirce___Encyclopedia Britannica

Triadic Imagination___"To process infinite sense to finite logic, isomorphically transduce to the universal law of pure liberty".

"A vision properly motivated which recognizes others' desire for an equal right to happiness & to be free of suffering can lead to wonders". Sumaya Kazi

A New Universal Arithmetic of Complexity Science___Isomorphic Transduction___“The highest pragmatic probability state, of the highest semantic knowledge state possible, respecting the highest universal law of pure liberty, is the highest state of wisdom possible.”

As a child, I always wanted to catch that biggest of bullfrogs, but why? Recently, while delving deep into the epistemic mechanics of imagination and ‘logica utens’, as quite well explained by Phyllis Chiasson, I seemed to have put together a rather interesting teleological, epistemic and ontological geometric mechanics of basic perception. Quite funny how that bullfrog lead the way to such deep discoveries. Starting last summer, I was making headway into the inner depths of my own personal epistemic mechanics. It was quite a deep study of self and hundreds of other’s ideas about epistemic agents and agency, and Jesse Prinz, one Mr. Pietarinen, Charles Sanders Peirce and many others guided my search, and I finally had to peer deep into my very own self-imagination mechanics, and this is where the bullfrog played its main part.

Over the winter I’d figured, with the help of a good friend, basicly how perception mechanics functioned almost entirely geometrically. We talked hundreds of hours about this and every related subject under the sun, while coming to almost entire grounded agreements of the results___He influencing me some, and I influencing him some, but in the end, almost total agreement. Over the last month, I’ve just been re-assessing the winter’s research and ideas, and decided to venture the final course of self-exploration. I first tried to see personality development and the tremendous role imagination played at my earliest of memory. Knowing perception functioned geometrically, I wanted to know how this fundamental arithmetic and logic, of the basic “logica utens” functioned. What was the basic computer of computation of computation, allowing imagination/perception to function as we know it certainly does? I’d earlier written about the epistemic limits of logic, truth and math, but now my ideas had more centered on the operation of pure imagination, and Peirce’s law of pure liberty, as relates to imagination/abduction and arithmetic, as per Kant’s arithmetic liberty ideas, which I’d published earlier, on this blog. Now, I wanted to know how the imagination actually fundamentally, arithmetically/geometrically produced ideas, concepts, hypotheses, etc. Why did the base imagination of mind choose arithmetic sense?

This is where the bullfrog comes in. As a child, why did I always want to catch the biggest bullfrog? Why does anyone do such things? Then my memory realized the central premise of Peirce’s logic, that it was “grounded in the social principle”. As a child, we’re all up against that which is bigger than us, and has power over us___parents, older friends, older relatives, large animals in the forests, large industrial machines, etc., etc., over-ruling our direct free spirit wishes, over-ruling our very liberties. This is not our desire, as many a musician and poet have pointed out, such as, “Stranger In A Strange Land”, or “I Was Born A King Of My World”, etc. All these ideas started returning to me when I thought about trying my damndest, to catch that biggest of bullfrogs, for years___he escaped my efforts many a time. Well, I finally caught him, but that’s a different part of the story than what I want to concentrate on here. My point is, we are naturally, by culture’s pressures, drawn to ‘largeness’ for protection, because all around us is largeness that is suppressing our wishes___especially the “No”, “No”, “No”, from our parents. The “Yes” usually runs about 10%, if that, of the “No’s”. They being bigger than us, as the child, automatically makes us want to be bigger, to gain our own autonomy and sovereignty___thus our striving to the arithmetic edge of advancement.

Now, you may not think much of this at first, but think about it in the evolutionary social context. All through history, this history is repeated, generation after generation, ad-infinitum. The child strives for sovereignty anew, always against the same odds of size dominating his/her freedom/liberty desires, so the imagination/perception has been, and is being, programmed mathematically to the innate sovereignty’s need for independence, through arithmetic size sovereignty, even the girls, as they are defended by the larger adults, early, and husbands, later in life. Oh, some marry smaller husbands, but not many. So, our minds are primarily mathematically conditioned, from birth, to the arithmetic advancement of our species___Arithmetic___The main former of our perception and imaginations, as to social contexts. I imagined several years about catching that biggest of bullfrogs, before I finally caught him. That’s a lot of time considering size. And it wasn’t just the bullfrog. It was the prime social context of most of my thoughts, as I felt I was being suppressed by every factor that was bigger, and had some sort of power over me, all the way up to about 16 years of age, whether adults, church, school or even play, with the mixed older and younger ‘kids’. That is until I got big enough to defend my desires.

What does all this have to do with the deep epistemic mechanics of imagination and ‘logica utens’ computations? If we look at a triadic perception of, 1.Imagination; 2.Logic; and 3.Arithmetic, I think I can show how the prime mind of imagination computes its eclectic realities, as to whether ‘God’, or 'No God’ is chosen. It actually matters not one bit whether ‘God’, or 'No God’ is chosen, as the mind of unlimited eclectic imagination, governed by its prime evolutional arithmetic necessities of survival of desires, computes identically arithmetically on either side of the equation, when the mind is questioned as to its mathematical validity of quantifications. I know this will make no difference to the religiously bent, but anyway… I as a child was raised in a natural mathematical, scientific, ‘logica utens’ and ‘logica docens’ family atmosphere, so my mind leans to the eclectic scientific side of the equation, but I was also raised with the mystical exaggerations of ‘the god myth’ at the same time, as my mother and grandmothers were both scientific and religious. So, I had the eclectic choice of either side of the imagination’s potentials, but gramps, my father and uncles were the dominant ‘no god myth’ major influence of my life, thus, I always imaginistically theorized about the scientific epistemic possibilities of ideas, far more than the ‘old wive’s tales’ of the women of my life. And yes, I was always thinking epistemically from the earliest ages I can remember, because gramps, being a scholar of Peirce, a businessman and politician, taught me, and the whole family, about the science and epistemic philosophy of Peirce. Gramps also taught my mother, even of a different upbringing, about Peirce, as she was a genius in her own right, about science and math, which greatly helped all my life. My father was always scientific and mathematical versed.

If the mind of ‘logica utens’ imaginationally thinks primarily mathematically from birth, it easily sees the true ground of the given perception’s geomentry, as the mind can process nothing, without first processing the first inductions of the real world, and this is by necessity, an isomorphic geometrical processing, as has been stated elsewhere on this blog. I’m here giving no credit to any ideas that do not conform to the ‘Mideval’ versions of common sense and realism, as to how direct perception/imagination truly functions. This is my choice, as it was Peirce’s, as I see all other choices as non-scientific, since they do not conform to the prime necessary arithmetic of this vast mind mechanics of ours, or perhaps simple, when reduced to a pure geometry of ideas. The question I had always asked, as have many philosophers, scientists and mathermaticians, is, “Is the continuum of mind/imagination required to be a state of ‘absolute infinite continuum’, to process the entire world of sense and science?” I will state emphatically___Yes it is.

If the mind of imagination and ‘logic utens’ did not possess the prime state of an “absolute infinite continuum”, and I truly mean absolute infinite, not rational or any of the constructed maths of infinites and infinitesimals, but truly absolutely unlimited, it would possibly lack the choice mechanics necessary to process eclectically the trillions of ideas that pass through all the citizens’ minds of the planet___that’s 6 billion times possibly millions of personal ideas for the entire population___computationally rather large. Now, of course no one individual processes all the ideas of everyone, like the ‘Borg of Startrek’, but we must, and do, have the computational capacity to process any of these ideas we come into contact with, and process them quite successfully, if a bit of effort is put forth. If the mind didn’t possess this infinite eclectic capacity, it would not function properly. It would possibly face the ‘Turing halting problem’, and we know this has never happened, nor do I have any doubt, that it ever will. Our technological computers may still face the halting problem, but I can, in no fashion, see how it would ever be possible for a human mind to face such a problem. I know my mind has never halted, even though sometimes I wish it would :)

This infinite eclectic perceptual processor of ours does make the prime choices, that will guide our lives though, and most likely in very early childhood, as anyway, that’s my case. And I don’t think I’m special. Some will choose the mystic path. Others will choose the scientific path. Yet, all will choose, ever if it’s a path between these two poles, they’ll still choose, even if it’s by not choosing___That’s still choice. If we are of the group that willingly chose the scientific path, we know our minds are inclined either toward the arithmetic or the logical, and here’s where the great difference is in the scientific community. I hope by showing this early childhood psychology of choice function, we can settle the arithmetic verses the logical question, of primary function.

I as a child had no logical function without the mathematics of the preceding ideas___The small and the large. I may have had psycho-logic moments of the senses, but my imagination was always obeying its prime natural given arithmetic function. The first prime given geometric inductions, IMO, can not be violated by any human being. They begin passively, before we have any say over this ground induction geometry, and I don’t think anyone can argue that, or change it. If they do, they are certainly using psycho-logic, as nature’s logic of necessity far precedes our knowing abilities of any logic concepts___That’s just a scientific fact of the universe’s natural given logic, and nature’s natural given passive logic. Anyone who disputes this is not using logic, whether of the “Docens” or the “Utens”. Anyone can throw psychology into the equation, but when the scientist asks for the cognitive psychology of his/her assessments, we’re right back to the arithmetic ground of pure logic again, so, go round in circles, with no true ground all you wish, you’ll eventually land in arithmetic ground___The Pure A Priori Arithmetic, or Combinatorics of… The bullfrog rules…

Given the necessary acceptance of arithmetic ground of imagination and ‘logica utens’, we must now look at the absolute necessity of the infinite continuum mechanics of mind. The question to ask, to develop the validity of, is “What Use?” What use validity does the absolute infinite continuum contain? By adhering to Peirce’s science of philosophy, the answer becomes quite clear. The use is found through use’s pragmatic interpretation and meaning to humanity. As Peirce stated, “Logic is found in the social principle”. So, what is the mathematical social principle’s use of a true infinite continuum? To answer this we must have man’s highest pure goal, and again, I revert back to Peirce’s ‘law of pure liberty’. And from here back to Kant’s arithmeticization of pure liberty___Our highest scientifically valid ideal, which I posted earlier on this blog. Mentally, we counldn’t successfully compute the logic necessary to solve our world’s many social contract collisions, unless we possessed the infinite continuum’s eclectic capacity to hold as many nation’s concepts in our minds at once, as is legitimately necessary, to solve such problems as exist. It’s only through this extremal capacity of concept processing, through our natural infinite imagination continuum, that we may have a chance of solving the planet’s dire and immense problems.

‘Iff’ imagination sees the law of pure liberty, as our highest arithmetically possible goal, of pure knowledge attainment, reaching toward pure social contract wisdom, we can compute, through prime algebraic logic, and fundamental geometry, all the inter-relational functions, and quantification functions necessary, to solve all the world’s problems. But, it’s only through the use of such unlimited abilities and capacities of an absolute infinite continuum’s existence, that this is possible. We must go beyond the rational systems of math, to the meta-maths and trans-rational understandings of the use of this infinite continuum’s isomorphic abilities of sound scientific synthetic reasoning, of ‘infinite use’ that functionally links the infinite with the finite. Though we only need use finite maths and geometries to solve the real world’s problems___We must use the infinite triadic synthetic arithmetic thoughts of ‘greatest good’, ‘best order’, and 'truest value' of Socrates’, Plato’s, Aristotle’s, Kant’s and Peirce’s logic functions and knowledge systems of liberty and sense, to prescind our physical world’s dyadic arithmetics. The understanding of solutions is in the triadic transc(i)nded imagination’s infinite absolute continuum…

The Triadic Continuum of Infinity, Finity and its Isomorphic Transducer --> The Absolute Infinite Truths of “Greatest Good Possible” “Best Order Possible” “Truest Value Possible” --> A Moral Arithmetic Quantifier Logic --> Absolute Infinite to Finite Transpires and Transduces in Abduction/Imagination --> Infinite Sense and Emotion Transduce to The Finite Law of Pure Liberty --> The Infinities Translate to Finite/Infinite Liberty --> The Universal Law of Pure Liberty --> The Infinite Absolute Concepts of Truth Can Be Arithmetically Finitized --> The Transcendence___Transc(i)nded.

The ‘Bullfrog’ has spoken…

"The Missing Teleology"...

The Truth of The History of Logic___Peirce vs. Russell

Peirce's Logic of Continuity: Existential Graphs and Non-Cantorian Continuum, by Fernando Zalamea

Semiosis and Pragmatism: Toward a Dynamic Concept of Meaning, by João Queiroz, Floyd Merrell

The Harvard___Peirce Family Conspiracy, Against Charles Sanders Peirce
The Singular Experience of A Peirce Biographer

Thought is what it is only by virtue of its addressing a future thought which is in its value as thought identical with it, though more developed. In this way, the existence of thought now depends on what is to be hereafter; so that it has only a potential existence, dependent on the future thought of the community.

No present actual thought (which is [in itself] a mere feeling) has any meaning, any intellectual value; for this lies not in what is actually thought, but in what this thought may be connected with in representation by subsequent thoughts, so that the meaning of a thought is altogether something virtual.

Accordingly, just as we say that a body is in motion, and not that motion is in a body, we ought to say that we are in thought, and not that thoughts are in us. -- Charles Peirce

(in answer to a friend…)
…Hi (all), it's the least I could do for such a clear ontological expose of these complex geometries, expecially since you've centered the explanation from a philosophical point of view, as philosophy is what I've been deeply studying for the last few years, although I've studied it quite thoroughly for over thirty years. Back in the `80's I came to the conclusion, while studying economics, that the math was wanting, so my best idea of where to find math I could trust was in the field of physics. I made some advances toward a clearer math for economics, but was never thoroughly satisfied, so I kept searching. Of course that took me into many fields of logics, maths, and philosophies, finally finding the most useful in the early Greeks, i.e., the Greek geometers, then the Arabic geometers. They are still my best applications of new renditions of maths applied to economics, through the Pythagorean theorem, especially by using the Pythagorean right triangle and scaling the three sides to represent all areas of empire and nation, etc., histories over time. I just let the three sides equal the three concepts of government/power/liberty, the longest side; corporations/money/power/liberty, one right angle side; and the people/power/liberty, the other right angle side. By shortening and lengethening the two right angle sides, all eras of history can be represented, no matter what the form of gov. or economic/legal/liberty/incentive conditions exist. It's easiest to see the relationships by actually extending the sides into the real squares of length representations on all three sides. Anything from Mao's worst state of communism, to dictatorships of the opposite power control, to the best incentive cases of American democracy, from the `40's to the `70's can be represented, mathematically accurately by just plugging in the total global numbers, which I have total access to, over my many years of research.

It's just the fact I realized philosophy offers the only dialogics available, powerful enough to relay all the simple/complexity of the systems I'm trying to get exposed, thus my bent toward philosophy, especially epistemology, and teleology. About a year ago I started putting together the geometry with statistical mechanics and true probability averages. That knowledge came from Charles Sanders Peirce, which my grandfather had taught me as a child, and my rediscovery of his importance, as America's premiere scientist, philosopher, logician, mathematician of the 19th century, which I was studying anyway, as I'd long ago decided most modernism was bull. I've been re-studying all I can find of him over the last six years, and the key lies with him, in putting this all together to make heads and tails of the modern world. I not only study his ontology, but his epistemology, and his teleology. These three also reveal the mereology, the philosophy of the one and the many. No other philosopher offers this completeness, not even all the moderns put together. Peirce said more by the pragmatic maxim, 100+ years ago, than all the moderns put together. In case you're not familiar with it, it covers his complete scientific method; "The Pragmatic Maxim___“Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.” C.S. Pierce"

Below, in my signature, I've included my re-interpretation of the same maxim. Most philosophers have just over-looked or entirely missed the mathematical importance of the above quote. Notice, it says "effects". That means "all possible effects", if one follows his complete works, which are extensive, really extensive___It covers all scientific possibilities. This one pragmatic maxim is a complete scientific methodology, for any idea or concept conceivable, and believe me, it works. So, in answer to your question, it's Peirce as my present main study, yet I do study and follow all I can find in math, physics, philosophy, economics and law, etc., plus the semantic web, the pragmatic web and the knowlege web, as presented by the Fins, Hintikka and Pietarinen, and Jesse Prinz from England, I believe, as he's so clear as to how perception's geometry scientifically functions. There are thousands of others related to Peirce, but not enough time to state. The Fins have an excellent library of Peirce's works, as do many nations of the world, especially the central intelligence agencies and militaries of most important nations, as they've been following his scientific methods for years, really since becoming more well known back in the thirties, through C.I.Lewis. Best sources in America are at Arisbe, Peirce's home site, and his original homestead in Penn. As a matter of fact, I'll be stopping in there in a couple of weeks, when I head to Maine. And yes, it was a terrible winter in Maine, as my children have informed my wife and I.

Now, as to your ideas. I'm, as you may have gathered, more interested in the teleological geometry of the universe, than the ontology, even though I do extremely like what you've presented, and especially titling it ____ ____, but I've always told everyone "physics lacks true ground". By this I mean, physically, mathematically and philosophically. To me, it's all a constructed/gauge theory system, lacking true ground. There's no ground in a priori universal or nature's given geometric and combinatoric maths or true fundamental physical fields, as the fields and maths always refer to something after the Big-Bang, which may not be true, as to big pop's existence/occurence? We just can't truly know or prove such a model, but I think we can logically prove a more robust teleological model, from the logic of absolute necessity. "Iff" the universe exists, it absolutely had to exist eternally, in some form, and the most likely would be some form of absolutely fundamental field of potential mass/energy combinations, before any first star/rock, etc. So far, physics, except for a few and rare breed of quantumists, have shown little speculation before the big pop. So, what's your teleological positions of the absolutely necessary prime mover and fundamental field/mass/energy?___Before the big pop?

Just between me and you...off the record... I'd call this "The Missing Teleology"...

The Triadic Maxim___Any Idea; “Arithmetically check all possible effects, against all possible premises, and the combined results will be the total actions of the idea.”

Flying Money___“Big Strong Dollar, Make Big Weak Nation…!”

{New, Important} Can Future Systemic Financial Risks Be Quantified? Ergodic VS Nonergodic Stochastic Processes, by Paul Davidson

The Pragmatic Maxim___“Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.” C.S. Pierce

The Triadic Maxim___Any Idea; “Arithmetically check all possible effects, against all possible premises, and the combined results will be the total actions of the idea.” Me

“Hi Joseph, I liked very much what you said the other day about the world needing to recognize a higher conceptual level of true eclectic understanding, and from a new ontological geometric perspective...” Well thanks Robert for the compliment, but it’s really not to my entire credit, as I just happened to have studied many of the world’s greatest master-minds, for almost sixty years now. I just happen to have a photographic memory, and my grandfather taught me early-on how to think truly analytically. If it weren’t for him, I doubt my mind would have been able to protect it’s photographic potential… But first, I’d be interested in your views about the global mess we are truly in, so, what is your general view, of the several fields we’ve recently been discussing…?

“…Well Joseph, I do accept your easier concept of keeping a conversation to a minimal of three concepts at once, as any larger number becomes difficult for perception to juggle at the same time. So as you say the triadic is the simplest/complex conceptual ground to most successfully relay ideas between two discussants. As to content, law, psychology and money are perfectly satisfactory to me, to discuss the world’s complexity, as long as side issues are merely allowed for clarrifications?” Oh, that’s fine with me Robert… “First, as to law and money, I think money is ruling law, not only nationally, but internationally as well, and this in turn, effects the psychology of all of us, as American citizens, but I’m not as certain as you are about it boiling down to the prices of currencies. To me currencies are just another commodity, controlled by the “Supply and Demand” of market forces as per Adam Smith, and long term controlled by David Ricardo’s doctrine of “Comparative Advantage”. I still have a lot of faith in market forces to work out the social/psychological problems, so you’ve got further convincing to do, if I’m truly going to reach your conclusions of a strong dollar creates a weak nation, and contributed greatly to the financial mess, whether national or international, the world truly finds itself in.”

…And Robert, do you notice a possible crack in your thinking, as pertains to the word “faith…? “No, not really. What do you mean?” In my opinion, when we take information on faith, even though it may be historically accepted for centuries, is it analytically, necessarily true…? “I never thought about it that deeply, to tell you the truth, what do you really mean?” I guess I’d have to expand our agreed triad to a fourth side-issue to really capture my idea, if that’s all right with you…? “Sure, Joseph, that’s fine, as long as it doesn’t take us too far off course…?” Oh, I don’t think it will, as I’ll pertain it to the triad we agreed on. As you know, we’ve earlier agreed that triads are easier to deal with, and we’ve already discussed, days ago, the prime triad I always work with, the triangle of intuition, logic and mathematics, with math always deciding the intuition’s and logic’s validity, so I’m simply drawing from that triad and applying to the one we’re discussing today. And, by applying mathematics to faith, we can eliminate the pesky bug of “faith” in your statement, to make the statement more analytical, if you don’t mind…? “…I guess that’ed be fine with me, as long as it’s explicated enough…?”

Ok…, to me, Smith’s and Ricardo’s main ideas are both two mathematical conceptions of political economy, and both were quite true under the then gold, silver and other by-metal systems, to a high degree of market actions, but never fully true, as history’s bad actions are well witness. Yet, after WWI, when most of the world moved off these standards, the truth of the maths applied to law, psychology and money changed drastically, yet the world continued to believe, i.e., had faith in them, long after they became ineffective, thus ending with the Great Depression and WWII. Tis true these ideas both have mathematical merit, but only as pertains to the global exchange law regimes instituted and enforced, at the differing times of global actions. As we well know, the Bretton Woods system had to be invented and implemented to solve the then world problems, and that’s just then, and not now, or I should say the last forty years of these very maths becoming, once again, invalid as to law, psychology and money’s true global transactions’ histories.

Now, as to the central core of the problem in historical mathematics applied to economics, i.e., law, psychology and money, it’s according to whether true probability averages, or chance probability averages are applied to statistical mechanics. As in the case of the economic mathematical founders of the 19th century, one used the true probability averages, one used a mix of both averages and chance, and the third used straight chance probabilities. These three economic, etc., mathematicians were Jevons, Piano and Walras. The general problem was and is that most of the world, by propaganda accidents of academic acceptances, accepted the more false chance probabilities maths applied to Smith’s and Ricardo’s initial ideas. “But Joseph, how could an entire academic world have adopted the wrong standards of math?” It’s a rather long story, but I’ll simplify it as much as possible.

You see, Jevons used the real statistical averages of Huygens and the insurance company probability statistics of historical averages, then applied these real numbers to his economic writings. He also had the real help of DeMorgan updating much of the maths of his day. Also Charles Sanders Peirce, in America, was updating much of the mathematical algebra, and studied Huygens, Jevons, DeMorgan’s and Schroder's ideas thoroughly, and agreed with them against the chance probability ideas of Beyes and LaPlace, etc., which Peirce criticized heavily at the time. Peirce also worked on an economic paper for his father in the early 1880’s for a Harvard presentation. He further wrote his own ideas, which were shared with many English and European master-minds of his day, based on the insurance statistical averages, which were in line with Huygen’s statistical averages, as applied to Gibbs’ statistical mechanics. On the other hand, Piano used some of Jevons and Peirce’s mathematical ideas, yet also used some of Beyes and LaPlace’s false ideas of chance statistical averages. Oh, they may work for special case dyadic applications, but economics is a p-adic mechanical process, requiring the more sophistocated real averages. And Walras used almost entirely Beyes and LaPlace chance statistics in his “Equilibrium Analyses”, thus fostering a really faulty system into the mathematical economic lexicons. Now, as you may know, many academics are a bit lazy when it comes to complex maths, so over the years, the simpler methods of Piano and Walras were more accepted than the truer systems of Huygens, Jevons, Gibbs, Peirce, Veblen, Keynes and or whoever, because these statistical average systems are much more complex to integrate into statistical mechanics than the simple axioms of Piano and the equilibrium and ergodic(tends to equilibrium; also ergodics was Boltzmann’s baby, and he was then the most popular European physicist) formulations, than are the more complex maths of Huygens, Jevons, Gibbs, Peirce and Keynes true maths. Of course, to add insult to injury, in the 50’s, a Nobel Prize was awarded to Arrow/Debreau, for the very wrong faulty maths, based in false ergodicity(as applied to economics, yet correct when applied to physics) and false equilibrium of economics, when in fact, economics always seeks liquidity(Keynes’ LPT, liquidity preference theory), whether equal or unequal. In fact, it’s easier to make higher profits with unequal prices, thus attracting the speculators, to further pressure the laws of market functions, as has happened, as we well witness.

“Wow Joseph, that’s quite an analysis to follow. Is it historically accurate…?” Absolutely, Robert. All the facts are there for anyone to follow up. The best place to start is with William Whewell from England, and Florian Cajori from America. They both wrote in depth histories of the inductive sciences and mathematics. Further, one can trace much of the earliest probability math attempts through Juan Vives, when the Arabic to European translations and transferrences took place, from the Old World to the New. Stay away from Heijenoort and his follow on, as in my research, he seems to be a KGB plant, going back to the twinties, to infuse disinformation into American, English and European academic logic and mathematics. As a matter of fact, he was Trotsky’s secretary, in Mexico, during the thirties, plus a lifelong socialist/communist, when it truly mattered to Russia and America. So, Heijenoort’s book, “The History of Logic” is one of the major influences in mis-directing western logic and mathematical ideas, over the last 80+ years, into outright dis-information___This is very easy to see when one simply reads these three histories mentioned, and compares the quality of real references, contents and contexts. Of course, the greatest influence was academic mathematical laziness. “…This is a lot to take in all at once, but you’ve got me hooked, as I’ve never heard this history of thought before. So, what you are saying is, we’ve all been seduced by an improper probability mathematical interpretation, statistically applied to economics’ “Supply and Demand,” “Comparative Advantage,” “Equilibrium Theory,” “Ergodic Theory,” “EMT(efficient market theory),” or, as all these mathematically apply to law, psychology and money…?” Exactly, Robert…! “If that’s the case, what do you suggest…?”

First, we must establish the true problem. It’s a scientific academic problem, at the highest of intellectual levels. I full well realize, it will be no small feat to over-come. As a matter of fact it’s the highest mountain true intuition and intellect have ever been asked, by nature, to climb. By nature, I mean we are being forced by world conditions, for our very survival, to right these wrongs. I suggest first, thoroughly and scientifically, studying and knowing these two maxims;

The Pragmatic Maxim___“Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.” C.S. Pierce

The Triadic Maxim___Any Idea; “Arithmetically check all possible effects, against all possible premises, and the combined results will be the total action of the idea.” Me

Only then can we begin the journey. I’ve already thought the paths necessary to travel these immense problems to solution are through linking the true ideas of history’s many master-minds, with the present world’s, nearest as possible, master-minds. To me, this would be linking the best mathematicians, philosophers, logicians of ancient, middle and modern eras, with the best mathematicians, philosopher, logicians, linguists, game theorists, psychologists, historians, whatever eras and fields... I’ve already made quite an extensive list of ancient and modern names that qualify to the standards I have in mind, but the task is daunting, no doubt. First, we must produce and gather enough pertinent material to induce these master-minds to join our work in progress, then maybe we’ve a chance of obtaining the huge goal, of re-educating a truly undereducated world. I must say, more than anything, these ideas should be centered on a complete understanding of Charles Sanders Peirce, as he’s already walked the scientific discovery path, the rest of the world must now tread…

“I know you’ve mentioned it many times befor, Joseph, but why put all your eggs in one basket, with Peirce…?” Just thoroughly consider the complete implications of the two maxims above. They are both the only true universal scientific methods of investigation ever offered to the world. All mine is, is the simpler interpretation, easier to remember, of Peirce’s original. Consider all the possible implications, and we can conquer any mountain, no matter how huge… “Evidently, I don’t see exactly what you see in them. Could you explain a bit more Joseph…?” Let me reword both, then maybe you’ll see;

The Pragmatic Maxim___“Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our (best possible liberty)conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the (best and highest possible)object(a priori arithmetic liberty).” C.S. Pierce

The Triadic Maxim___Any Idea; “Arithmetically check all possible effects(of any monetary law system), against all possible premises(of any new monetary law system suggested), and the combined results will be the total action(transactions and habits of the people) of the idea.” Me

“…Hey, I might even be catching on, but that’s a tall order, even for the world’s most capable computers and data storage systems, and what about the uncollectable numbers, from the unreporting countries…?” There’s a slight problem, but you know what Ol’Man Bechtel said; “Problems are just opportunities in workclothes.” We can use new international laws to entice many to report. The holdouts can be figured with real probability averages to the true statistical mechanics needed. Remember, it’s only the wrong math presently preventing the total number logic functions. We already have most 80% reporting(areas where needed), and may be able to achieve 90% with new laws. That’s plenty accurate to figure the total averages needed to figure the two above maxims. “…Well Joseph, I think I can accept that, but let’s discuss the main topic I wanted to address, which is your quote the other day of: “Big strong dollar, make big weak nation”, as I don’t thoroughly, even yet agree. I know it’ll take me time to synthesize what you’ve said today, but I like to go a bit deeper into the dollar issue. You mentioned its triadic function. What did you mean, exactly…?”

As you know the Pythagoreans were big into the triadic principle of the necessity of the law of “mean terms”. They also termed this mean “the continuity principle”, and it’s been the core of mathematics ever since. The internal continuum is what all serious mathematicians figure their arithmetics from. It’s really just the internal intuitive abstract space of perception/mind/cognition, whatever. It’s easy to see the continuum mechanics through Parmenides scant work… So, let’s start with something simple and known to be triadic___constitutional government of most modern nations. “Why triadic Joseph…?” Ah…, three branches of government, 1.Executive, 2.Legislative, and 3.Judicial, and most all developed nations of somewhat similar forms of freedom/liberty do have such similar structures of this triadic nature. Even Madison, when he dreamed it up, was looking at a brass model of Copernicus’ universe, in the Dean’s office, when he entered King’s College. He stated in his notes, the tri-balance of powers, thus the triadic. Now, let me explain the further interpretation of its operations as to local, national and international laws or social contracts of. Take yourself. You have a self-constitution in direct or indirect relation to the local/national constitution. Now, this self and national constitution has a further relationship with the international constitution(finance, trade and diplomacy treaties) with other nations, and they in turn have the reciprocal triadic relationship, from their side of the triad of total law structures, making the whole triad function as the political, trade and transactions system it is. So, it’s really a triple triad of law relationships. I’d say that’s quite triadic, wouldn’t you…? “Guess you’ve got me there, Joseph, but what about as to the dollar, or currencies, are you saying the same law contracts/constitutions apply…” Exactly. Just take the price of a loaf of bread, here in America, and that local price has one price relationship with the dollar, a second of the dollar to the yaun, of China say, and a third of the yaun to a loaf of bread’s price in local China. That’s the primary triadic pricing mechanism of capitalism between any two nations. Now, just multiply that by 232 nations, and that’s the 232 triadic transactions nations’ mechanical pricing processes of the total capitalist legal system, personal/local, local to international, and international to international, plus all the reciprocals. Now, do the math. See the triadic complexity…? “Oh yeah, and it’s immense. Is it over-comeable…?”

And here’s the real surprise. Yes it is. All we need do is apply the ever-existing eclectic ontological geometry of the many schools of our entire history, in entirely new ways, never before tried… “What do you mean by that, Joseph…?” As I’ve mentioned to you and in past posts at my blogs, we can use the symmetric universal formulas and laws of physics, in conjunction with the early Greek’s geometry, to prove the actions of the two maxims, I already stated. The most powerful mathematical social and political economic proofs can be supplied by either the Pythagorean Theorem, as represented by Kepler’s Triangle, or The Golden Ratio, creating The Golden Mean, representing within it the Golden Variable, or Archimedes’ Center of Mass universal formula, or his Trisection of an Angle, to achieve the social mechanics proofs necessary to convince the wisest of academic in the world, as these geometries are from the groundedness of true arithmetical grounds possible___Natural creative geometry… “Joseph, what do you actually mean by the Golden Variable…?” That’s a good question Robert,. Within the geometry of the Golden Ratio, is the area of the Golden Mean of liberty’s feasible actions, yet these truths of liberty must have a representamen. The total truths of liberty must be variable for liberty to function, so I’ve designated the Golden Variable, within the Golden Mean, created by the Golden Ratio to be the “Necessary Truth Condition” of liberty’s actions. Our personalities require the freedom to express themselves, within the respect of other’s personality freedom’s liberties... “…Ok, I guess I can accept that explanation, now as to the dollar, how does a big strong dollar produce a big weak nation…?”

Well, the answer to that question is the answer to all the world’s nation’s history of gaining and losing their empire status, through the process of perpetual economic suzerainty, or economic power passing from one empire to the next, as may be now passing from America to China, if we do not awake from the great mathematical sleep. In `44 and `45 we instituted the Bretton Woods international monetary system, which worked somewhere’s near good until the first currency crisis of `68, while America was heavily involved in the Vietnam War. Instead of repairing the currency exchanges to a proper balance, America started relinquishing gold to France and a few others. We should have overhauled the entire system to the proper function then, but we didn’t. The problems of currency imbalances continued on into the Nixon Administration, until he finally took America off the gold standard in `71, and finally ended the balancing Bretton Woods currency system in `73, thus ushering in the very unstable system of floating currencies, worldwide. Of course the false academics of the mathematical schools had been waiting in the wings for just such an opportunity to foist their disinformational mathematical economic ideas on an unsuspecting world community. Oh, there were cries from England and Europe, but the loudest voices were the Beyesian, Laplace, Smith, Ricardo, Piano, Walras mathematical probability schools. So, we’ve been under the spell of false constructed math schools of political economy, verses the true creative mathematical schools of years past.

As to the dollar gaining in strenght from the `40’s to the `70’s, the problems were really minor, due to the fact of America benefitting the most from WWII, by being the only nation most undamaged by the war, and ended rebuilding England, Europe and most of the others, which had been greatly damaged by the war. So, during this period dollar strength did not harm America, even though we became the key currency of most all international trade and finance, but from `73 to today, it’s been an entirely different story, as we’ve not had a world to rebuild, to offset the excess costs involved, especially of policing the entire world for free, thus the massive expansions of our debt to GDP ratios. Any nation can maintain an overvalued currency for a certain number of years, depending on the economy’s strength and the creativity and productivity of its people, but no nation can maintain the “Comparative Dis-Advantage” forever. We crossed this barrier somewhere in the `80’s under Reagan, and have been sliding downhill, into national debt insecurities, ever since, due to nothing but a dollar___far too strong. Yet, we have a problem to reducing its value where it’s the key world trading currency, just as every nation of the past had the same problem, at the peak of perpetual economic suzeraintic power curves. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantians, Dutch, Spanish, French, Germans, English, and many others already experienced the far too strong a currency histories, and now it’s our turn, but is there a way out, is the real question. As I’ve told you already, and recently posted these ideas on both my blogs, I’ll not repeat the ideas now. You know them well.

What I will do is describe how the lesser nations with weaker(lower value) currencies act through mercantilism against the hedgmonic nation, as we now are. The mechanics of the mercantilist is easily seen through America’s own early history, when Alexander Hamilton turned the nation’s trade policies against England and the Europeans. We had all the “free land and resources” to flood the then over-priced world, thus making their currencies over-priced as to the then existing gold, silver and mixed currency systems. The old nations also had “Imperial Preference” laws which we refused to respect, some years after the Revolutionary War. Hamilton, recognizing the possible dominant potential of America’s trade position instituted heavy import tariffs and no export taxes, which put the nation of mercantilist America against England’s, Europe’s etc., hedgmonic nations/empires. They possessed “real” high currency costs, internally and externally, while we possessed “real” low currency costs, thus over the course of the next 200 years, their high currency costs reduced them to far weaker empires/nations, of their former selves, while America became the dominant world player, but passing herself, from mercantilism to hedgmony in the process, against most of the rest of the world nations. So, big strong dollar make big weak nation___It’s just an obvious historical empirical observation. It only takes looking at the rising costs of labor and resources in America, and her major off-shoring efforts by the major corporations, over the last 40 odd years, and we all know the results___China the bull in the china-closet, and thoroughly as mercantilist as we were 200 years ago... I’ve also posted all about this on both my blogs, which you Robert, have read, so I need not go into it. That’s most of what I have to say for now. So, any further questions…?

“Oh yes Joseph, I have a few… I’ll take them one at a time. Why did we allow this to happen, if history was so clear..?” …Well Robert, I’ve described economic history clear to you, but the academic and political pin-heads of power have never had the clear view I’ve discussed. Remember___The academic logical and mathematical self-brainwashing…?

“…You mean to tell me that a whole nation could be so gullible…?” Yes Robert, I mean exactly that. It’s not everyone that’s blind in America, it’s just the orthodox schools of flawed math, politics and economics are and have over-ruled the heterodox schools of true math, politics and economics. Even as far back as the `60’s I read William Spalding’s truth about economics, from an international banker’s perspective, as he worked in Indian Banking, for England back in the twenties, but these type of books just gathered dust on the university library shelves. As proof, I checked out many of the world’s best realist authors from the `60’s to the present, and most of these books still had the original library jacket envelops inside, never being checked out___the tell-tale history of academic research___Researchers just seem to go with the popular consent, usually guided by professorial entrepreneurship. Yet if I checked books of less import from the same periods, they’d been often checked out. Books such as Paul Einzig’s, Gustav Cassell’s, Child’s, Hogsdon, Foa, Conent, King etc., and hundreds of others of the most important on international banking and trade markets, forward exchange, foreign exchange, speculation, hedging, short sales, capital flight etc., either were’t checked out or very rarely, so the library records are very clear proof, and this is at some of the nation’s best universities, and the Library of Congress to boot.

“…If our academic and political elites aren’t doing the deep research required to properly run a complex nation, what’s to be done? Really, I just can’t believe it…” Just go to the libraries and check it out for yourself. I’m sure it’s no different today, as it held true for me all through the `70’s to the `90’s. I just haven’t checked recently, as I didn’t want to be any more discouraged than then. Just look at the mess we’re in. It didn’t come about because we were brilliant___It came about because we weren’t brilliant, and we weren’t brilliant, because we were seduced, brainwashed and cajoled by the false academic/political/mathematical dis-information parade of the last 80+ years.

“…Seriously, what’s to be done Joseph…?” Study the real triadic facts of the laws, psychologies and monies, with the guiding eye of math over intuition and logic. Follow the pragmatic and triadic maxims of true scientific investigations… “…I’m too tired to go on any more today. Let’s call it a day…” Yeah, that’s fine with me. We’ll take it up again tomorrow if you like… “Give me a few days to digest this information…” Ok, see you later. Fly low…

Oh Robert, remember, I call this; “The Eclectic Ontological Geometry of Global Markets and Transactions…”

“Ok, see you later Joseph…”