Friday, August 28, 2009

The Blind ‘Black Box’__Ergodicity...


Please don’t be put off by the title, as this author is only premising what he has to state on facts about political economy, as he gathers many may be interested in. He’s simply using the ‘Black Box’ of ergodicity as an analogy of what economic scientists do not yet know about economic theories and facts, over the period from its modern mode of institutionalization/institutionalism, beginning in the later 19th century to today. Many have asked about the social sciences term, ‘methodological individualism’, i.e., ‘the rational choice theory’, i.e., MI and verses MH(methodological holism), Schumpeter’s original idea, stated in 1908, yet published then only in German. This author was unaware, until more recently, of his terminology, even though he’d read much of Schumpeter, yet now realizes it is the idea of micro-economics having methodological precedence over macro-economics. This author long ago had taken the macro side of economic explanations, and below he’ll loosely compare MI and MH, and explain why he, and most heterodox post-Keynesian economists, choose the macro over the micro, which should answer your questions, or at least, lead in the direction of further investigation. It’s all about logic and extended logics, which are really a priori epistemic, but must be interpreted ontologically__Also…(as a note; This author only accepts subjectivity[emotions] as no more than the mental state of personally chosen, abstracted objective senses, connected to one’s natural instinctual energy, and often quite exaggerated, i.e., the author is personally an analytic mathematical logician, and believes logic without math is invalid__at the least, valid logical syllogisms must contain mathematical implications, for sound validity__This author takes the non-Aristotelian logic positions, as the more rational route for modern truth systems)…

History has many blind spots, but none so great as exists in political economic science, or the author should say, the non-science of political economics. Let it be stated right from the start; ‘methodological individualism’, or ‘rational choice theory’ fails to scientifically produce any viable logical syllogistic conclusions, due to the facts not existing in epistemic individualism(the individual must look out, as well as in, for the total truth)__unless the whole is also considered in the initial premises(It's the old Plato-Aristotle battle of universals and particulars_not much has changed). This theory has a long history of claiming more than is even possible of an epistemic agent of rational choices, and due to more than any other factor, of ignoring ‘irrational choice theory’, ‘uncertainty’ and the many mathematical statistical unknowns of and in the social sciences domain, especially as logically relates to the greater aggregates of outside influences(which simultaneously exist) of other and most often opposing nations of epistemic and ontological competitors, as whole states and aggregates of greater magnitude states, of actions upon not only one’s own ontic nation’s facts, but every epistemic individual agent’s facts as well. In logic theories of the above, the greater aggregates of outside states rational and irrational epistemic and ontic actions, can obviously over-whelm any epistemic rational choice actions of the primary state, as she is simply mathematically outnumbered and out-powered by said ontic actions and outside epistemic intelligences.

The second reason is the ‘Black Box’ self-blindness of not seeing the building of other nation’s long term goals of epistemic and ontic action desires and ambitions, mixed with epistemic and ontic ‘habitus’, such as socialism in Russia from 1917 on, and communism in China from Mao’s revolution on, and how this would truly play back into our system of epistemic individualism, liberal ideals, market sustainability, or whatever__over time... Just as an obvious example, America spent some 90 years railing against Russian socialism, and some 60+ years railing against Chinese communism, yet without ever penning hardly a word about an accidental, or possibly planned by them, of re-entering the capitalist system, after being out of the capitalist system all these years__Why?(and the imbalances created_beyond belief) This is the greatest lack of personal and national insight an otherwise intelligent nation has almost ever made, since the results have been so devastating, when one truly figures the historical debts and real numbers leading to and creating Sept ‘08. How many years did America spend in the blind Arrow-Debreu ‘Black Box’ of false mathematical models?

Few realize, the only long term true political economic intelligence, we as people and nations possess, is probable possibilities of guaranteed uncertainties, no matter how many mathematical models we build. Therefore, the only risk solution is a proper law structure to guard against uncertain risk, but America chose, over the last forty years, to de-regulate our Keynesian risk protection system of laws. So, even though the outside world’s uncertain irrationalisms can easily overwhelm any nation, America did this one to herself, thus the questions become__How and Why…? Then, we must trace the problems to the central historical political economic and social science arguments between MI and MH, or micro and macro economics of modeling methods…

On the micro side we have the the English Classical School(Smith, Pareto, etc.), the Austrian School(Schumpeter, Menger, von Mises, Hayek, etc.), and the later Chicago School(Samuelson, Arrow, Friedman, etc.) of conflated institutional or mathematical economics. On the macro side we have the Italian School(Ricardo, Sraffa, etc.), the English Non-classical School(Jevons, Marshall, Pigou, Spalding, Einzig, Robbins, Keynes, etc.), the early Chicago Institutional School(heterodox; Ely, Peirce, Veblen, etc.), and the modern heterodox economists(Galbraith, Vickers, Gelert, Dornbusch, Minsky, Davidson, Auerback, Gilbert, Skidelski, Daly, Dore, etc.). The argument goes; “Economics must be founded on individual rational choices.” Vs., “Economics must be founded in the uncertainty of rational and irrational choices and actions.” The major difference of these two models is the first is based on pseudo-specific analysis, and the second is based in general eclectic analysis only(probable and possible genericity). Jevons, Peirce and Veblen were the first to vehemently criticize the classical economic models of their day, by clearly showing the mathematical faults, uncertainties and impossibilities of Bayesian probability theory and facts, as applied to these systems. All three clearly stated probability theory(as per Huygens’ true statistical probability mechanics) in economics could only represent a general possibility probability of future actions, and never a known holistic fact, other than changes. Future knowable facts were clearly impossible in their eyes, yet the classical institutionalists ‘just knew’ they could over-come the facts__But as Sept. ‘08 has clearly and fully shown__The Mathematical Institutionalists were Wrong, Wrong, Wrong…!

And now, it’s time to rebuild the system, but not on the failed plan of a dishonest integrity of “I Know”, but on the realities of uncertain futures’ knowledge. And, uncertain futures require real margins of risk protection, and this means new, and logically sensible, financial and market laws, to govern our epistemic and ontological passions into sensible paths...

We can all have big egos forever, but ‘a logic’, it will not make. The dishonest integrity of present classical logic systems extends clear back to Aristotle’s limited system of three logic laws; identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle, and many are unaware this system of thought was really over-turned just about 1000 years ago by Ibn Sina, or Avicenna, as he’s known to the West. Ibn Sina created the first viable non-Aristotelian logic, complete with a long categories list, by extending his syllogistic system to include the logic of relations, time, quantity and quality, and clearly showing the overly limiting conditions of Aristotle’s fractious logic system(human nature requires non-identities, contradictions and included middles, of mean terms, as is evident just by realizing humans exist, holding both rational and irrational opinions and strong beliefs of, as do all nations). He was also the first to create(even by our stds.) a modern modal logic and deal with quaternions, long before Hamilton and Hilbert. Next in history to truly extend Aristotelian logic to a non-Aristotelian logic was Peirce, yet a bit tentative about completing his thoughts, while a student of only age 17 in Russia, one Vasiliev(father of paraconsistent logics), somewhat completed Peirce’s non-Aristotelian logic, and finally by 1910 naming it ‘Imaginary Logic’ after his father’s mentor and friend Lobachevsky, the inventor of non-Euclidian ‘Imaginary Geometry’(later Grassmann and Clifford also), which has been followed up on by both Russian and American militaries, thus joining logic and cognitive psychologies into viable models and methods of pragmatic actions… Had these total above events been heeded, by the West’s academic economists, and other elite pinheads, over the last 150 years, this author feels we’d not needed end in the Sept. ’08 crash. We may have had sense enough to avoid it. We now must pick up the pieces, and let us hope the academic community finally realizes Aristotle is just a very limited logic system, and the greatly extended non-Aristotelian logics of the last 150 years, from Boole, De Morgan, Jevons, Clifford, Schroder, Peirce, Vasiliev, Veblen, Keynes, Herbrand, Noether, and Tarski to Nozawa, Zalamea, Lefebvre, Finn, Hanna, Davidson and Pollock, etc., must be listened to…

Sandia National Laboratories Peircean Induction Graphic
John Pollock __ The Mystery Link _ Embodied Perception
Bourdieu’s Three Relations of Knowledge Claims
The Economic Mind of Charles Sanders Peirce, by James R. Wible
Complete Economics, Physics, Philosophy Image Library(click graphics for larger image)...

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

The Logic of Self, Creating Self, Within The Greater Self…

Epistemology, Rationality, and Cognition, by J. Pollock
VISION, KNOWLEDGE, AND THE MYSTERY LINK, by John L. Pollock & Iris Ovid__ Graphic p.29/337

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

"Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth." CSP
Everyone has traveled the tumultuous emotional and intellectual path of life, in search of the great ‘Riddle of the Sphinx’__few have succeeded__most are still searching__many have given up. This author is no exception, yet having traveled a longer and more varied journey than most, may have stumbled across the great secret of homunculus. Philosophers and intellectuals of all ages have trekked the shores of this knowledge and wisdom, of self and others, in search of the magical metaphysical and logical keys to the universe__the philosopher’s stone, as it’s been called__but where does it hide? Have you looked directly before your very eyes…? There’s a space there you may not have realized__It’s called ‘Habitus’. It’s a tricky space, not small, not large, but humongous in size, compared to all the other possible thoughts, excepting infinity, that is. Many have named this space, but few have truly investigated its depths of clear waters. This area, of the logical metaphysics of habits, will be thoroughly investigated, to reveal a truth system so simple and obvious, one will be amazed they hadn’t thought of it themselves.

Some 2300 years ago Aristotle, in his metaphysics and ethics, delved into the continuum of mind and thought, but not as deep as he could have, had he recognized the importance of his retroductions’ full possibilities. Socrates and Plato had earlier also investigated the same area, but interpreted the continuum into forms, ideals, ideas and archetypes, which most investigators falsely took to be a synthetic transcendentalism, when in fact it was actually one of the closest attempts of pure explication. Had Aristotle looked deeper into his aesthetic rationalism creating the highest virtuous states of mind, and instead of laying it off to ‘god’, he may have discovered the truth to his deeper investigations of the metaphysics of rational habits. About two millennia later, Kant also came very close with his metaphysics of law, liberty and morality, to discovering the full actions of mind, but concentrated too heavily on the synthetic and moral aspects instead of the aesthetics and esthetics of habits. And finally, Peirce developed the metaphysics of habits as fully as anyone to date, except possibly Bakhtin, Bourdieu and Lefebvre. Though many of history’s greatest minds have investigated the depths of mind and thought, none have yet closed the epistemic, teleological and ontological gaps between feelings and actions, completely. This author is stating, this can and will be done…

One of the most important figures to mention is a little known Russian logician, Nicolai A. Vasiliev, due to these statements;

Logic is based, according to Vasiliev, on geometrical intuition. The basic logical relation, as in geometry, is the relationship between whole and the parts of the whole, reduced to the relation between foundation and its consequences. Foundation is a whole and consequences are its parts. This relation in essence should be assessed as mathematical and it lies at the basis of the syllogistic principle. Logic and mathematics enrich each other. That is why "non-Aristotelian logic is not merely an application to logic of non-Euclidian geometry method; we may argue that non-Euclidian geometry is a special case of the application of the non-Aristotelian method of logic."


“The pseudosphere is in some sense an ideal construction, but under certain physical conditions in the universe, Lobachevsky's imaginary geometry becomes the geometry of real space. "If the world or our sensory faculties are organized in a particular manner, logic must be non-Aristotelian" [Vasiliev 1912a, 238, reprinted 1989, 85]. “Our world and sensory faculties are arranged in such a manner that all immediate sensations are positive. "Negative" sensations actually are negative; they are secondary if compared to positive sensations, and appear when one feature replaces another one that is incompatible with the first one. In a world in which living beings have two kinds of sensations, non-Aristotelian logic surely reigns. To put it another way, the logical laws and principles are determined in the first place by nature of cognitive objects and of the experiences open to the subject, i.e. they are EMPIRICAL”. N.A.Vasiliev


This allows one to see that a non-Aristotlean logic is necessary for modern understanding to take place, just as a non-Euclidian geometry is. It further reinforces the facts already known by many about C.S. Peirce’s non-Aristotlean logics, as all these figures thus far mentioned, except Aristotle, used and or advocated a triadic logic, or polyadic, over the dyadic logics of others, as is shown in Vasiliev’s above quotes…

________________________________________________

At this point, the author asks you to please retrieve a blank sheet of printer or writing paper and pencil or pen__it will make your journey much easier to understand. Let this blank piece of paper be considered as ‘a sheet of assertions’ representing a mind, which you may later fill in. Let the sheet represent you, the first day of your birth, and onward. What needs to be inserted to describe your complex mental and simple physical states? What truly makes you up as a newly born human being? By you, the author is referring to the “I” that is the “Being” essence of your very self__and not now__Then. By ‘simple physical’, is to be understood as the physical essence of that related to the “I” mechanics that is you, i.e., the physical aspects of the brain and body, related to the mind__or embodied mind.

What does one truly and scientifically know this initial state of birth mind to be? Mind and brain scientists know it to consist of the basic reptilian instincts, the five basic sensory organs, and memory storage spaces. Of these three major areas, instincts and memory storage areas are least well understood, than the five sense organs. They do know the basic instincts represent a ‘fight or flight’ mechanism, and most philosophers and psychologists are in agreement with this. There’s still major dis-agreement over whether it’s inborn, or developed from birth on. With your ‘sheet of assertions’, please draw a very large circle to represent the sense organ, perception, which is actually the brain’s sense organ of all the five senses, as well as memory and the reptilian instincts. Within the large circle draw a one inch circle at its center, to represent the core of perception. Now, draw a series of one-half inch circles around the center circle, to represent all the sense agents listed above, the five sensory organs, memory spaces(draw a minimum of three), and the natural instincts. Let the natural instincts be known as a pure energy state, of fight or flight actions, and nothing more. From outside the large circle, draw three arrows toward the outer circle, and three arrows away from the large circle. Draw separate area arrows from the inside of the outer circle, to the outside of the center circle, with arrow heads on both ends thus <-->. Draw the same arrows between the center circle and all the one half inch circles, and the same arrows between each of the one half inch circles. Make them all well spaced, so words of description can be added later. Please name the center circle perception center, the outer circle total perception, the one half inch circles, sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. Name the three memory areas, mem one, two, three, and name the basic instinct as rep-e, to represent reptilian energy.

Going back to the birth state of your being, what do you experience first? Hunger? Discomfort? This is before one even opens their eyes, in the first few days of life. Where are these basic inputs coming from? Most would answer, from a combination of the basic animal instincts and the five senses, as that’s all that’s truly present to a newborn child, and that would be correct, as this author subscribes to John Locke’s and many others ‘Tabula Rasa’ or ‘blank slate’ mind, at birth, except for the basic physical brain spaces and states listed above, and you’ll be shown why this model makes the most scientific sense. The above is also not to be construed as lacking the basic emotional, mathematical, and logical, etc., potentialities, as anyone knows if one thinks about it, that the mind processes images isomorphically mathematically, just as a digital camera does, automatically with nature’s given physical/mental apparatuses. This is all given as foreground for easier explication of the actual actions of how the ‘habitus of nature’ and ‘logical self’ actually build the human soul and mind from scratch…
_______________________________________

Imagine opening your camp or cabin door first thing in the morning on a beautiful sunny summer day, to see a glass smooth lake_quiet_peaceful_just plain exquisite__the feeling of being filled with exhilerating beauty_aesthetic and esthetic beauty, form and order. There are really few words to describe these feelings_moments of euphoric lucid vision__as anyone experiencing such views has known these glorious feelings, over and over all their lives__but have you ever thought of naming them? One must realize this author, as has been stated many times before in earlier posts, is taking the standpoint of a universal independent background of eclectic genericity view__this means a perspective of background independence, or an independence friendly logic, as Hintikka has described it, or as per Einstein’s independent background field. If emotion is your preference of perspective over logic, that works fine also, as the eclectic view of genericity admits all perspectives, and personal views as well... As was asked, have you ever thought of naming them? IMO, nothing is more important of deep investigation than this quiet mechanics of nature’s ‘Habitus’, filling our minds and spirits, from birth onward, with the positive reinforcements of nature’s best. As I’ve mentioned, all the way from the early Greeks and Indians, to the modern logicians, mathematicians, psychologists, sociologists, etc., this phenomena has been talked of, but as of yet, in a less than thoroughly investigated manner, and that even includes the above mentioned authors from Socrates to Peirce, Vasiliev, Bakhtin, Bourdieu and Lefebvre, as well as many others that could be mentioned, such as Ponti and Polyani, etc.

Few realize aesthetics has a foreground history in esthetics, as well as aesthetics, since the early Jains of India believed in all spiritual as well as physical objects of our universe being purely physical in nature. That means they believed in a total esthetic nature of humanity, nature and universe, which interprets as purely physical, all the way to the human soul. And others from the early Hindi’s on believed in an aesthetic soul, or mental and metaphysical, as the case would be, so this author sees the dire need of clear distinctions between aesthetics, a-aesthetics, a-esthetics, a unity of aesthetics and esthetics, and esthetics, in order to thoroughly interpret and understand the world and universe of ‘Habitus’, all the way to the deepest intuitions of. Without such clear distinctions, humanity is just conflating the most important meanings of our basic soul and mind formation mechanics, from birth onward, as the baby, child and young adult’s minds and souls are initially formed by these first inductions, passively, by the natural given mechanics of the existing world’s actions.

In the first few days of a baby’s life, he/she doesn’t even open its eyes, so all inductive inputs are through only four and one half of the five senses, and the natural internal instincts, plus inner perception_that appx. one half of perception, sensing the outer and inner worlds__they manage to do this quite well, but the most important sense organ of the five is when the baby opens its eyes to the world of amazing visual perception. This is where the real passive organization and building of the baby’s/child’s soul and mind begins, and it must be exceptionally stressed__the largest input is passive induction through the eyes and perception. And, this input is coming into this new being through three channels, 1. The Aesthetic; 2. The Esthetic; and 3. The middle terms mentioned above, of positive and negative inputs, and all from the natural habits of people’s, object’s, and nature’s desires, ambitions, descriptions and actions. This is the greatest order forming of the baby’s/child’s soul and mind which physically/mentally takes place. It is usually overwhelmingly aesthetic in content, providing the child is born into and raised in a loving, caring environment, and not in war-torn, or tormented homes and conditions. So, as anyone can imagine the greater society at large is raised with a greater magnitude condition of aesthetic and esthetic surroundings, than of the middle term conditions, which can also be partially negative. This is a mathematical certainty of building the early soul and mind toward the greater orders of aesthetic virtue, rationality and common sense, through nature’s passive visual mechanics of automatic perception_natural passive induction. Peirce was the first to draw attention to the attributes of nature’s habits through his personal, social and cosmic metaphysics of habits, but the passive element was never so stressed by him, or any of the other authors mentioned, but this author states, that it’s the most important element of global, social and personal evolution__and all performed independently of the personal being, by nature herself.

We may have the ability to block many ideas entering our minds and souls, but the passive aesthetic and esthetic is always allowed passage to the baby/child and us as adults, as it continues happening all our lives, right up to our passing. So, the three arrows entering the large circle can now be named, aesthetic, esthetic and the mid positive and negative terms between these two. The three arrows out of the large circle can be named the same, as this is all that truly enters and leaves our minds and souls, when action’s pure attributes are considered. Aesthetics and esthetics is the basic conditional attributes a-scripted to all our other senses and instincts. The three memory space circles can be named the same to classify these areas of storage space__active or inactive_working or idle. So far, we have pictured a simple model of mind and soul mechanics, as the building of one’s early soul would just be the overwhelmingly huge aesthetic/esthetic content entering all three memory space areas, as will, as the predominant distinction areas of all three memory space areas, when one chooses to make these distinctions, but if one doesn’t even know these basic distinctions even exist, one’s mind and soul may remain conflated, producing ambiguous actions and results, all one’s life. Since the English language has been so edited away over the last one hundred years, it’s no wonder most are walking around in severely conflated states, as economic competition, over the years, has forced publishing houses to reduce the size of modern dictionaries, thesauruses and encyclopedias, thus editing the words necessary for humankind’s true understandings of self, world and universe. Esthetics was one of the casualties, since few modern dictionaries carry its older meanings. Really, the dental community seems to be the only community of users today, but all the way from the Jains of India, to the present day, it’s been a major part of our spiritual and intellectual heritage and reality. It’s about time for a clarity of new__old distinctions. Charles Sanders Peirce’s material is presently one of the few where one can find clear definitions of esthetics, which he preferred over aesthetics, when talking about scientific logic and maths, as they are about the physical world, and aesthetics applies more to the mental world. He used aesthetics to describe the arts and music, etc., or beauty_the true, good and beautiful, as from antiquity, but they should have also recognized the Jain distinction of esthetic beauty of spirit and nature, verses their aesthetic beauty of spirit and nature. Who would think one little letter ‘a’ could make such a difference in thoroughly interpreting and understanding the magnitude differences of soul and mind mechanics and uses.

‘Iff’ one realizes the above, one can also begin to see how our basic intuitions function, and this even includes our basic soul’s moral functions. The Russian V.A. Lefebvre and his associates have already mostly completed the “Algebra of Conscience” for us, with a simple Boolean arithmetic and related algebra__this article should fill in the rest. This amounts to ‘The natural passive aesthetic/esthetic given’ from the phenomenal outside world, builds our natural soul within our internal memory spaces, whether active or inactive, the natural given nature is there, by nature’s ‘Given Habitus’ actions. It can be represented by this more simple formula X=X+1^3r, which is interpreted as, let X=Self, and X+1=Self plus all aesthetic/esthetic given inductions of habits, and 3r=Recurring repetitions of all three aspects of passive habit inductions, thus building a major part of our souls’ and minds’ later self-willed actions, strongly influenced by this natural passive aesthetic/esthetic inductions of habits process, from birth to death. This author recommends Lefebvre’s newest book, “The Algebra of Conscience” for the full explication of the Boolean arithmetic and algebra, and his full explication of ‘The Theory of Reflexitivity’, also explained in this book. There are also excellent papers presented by the “International Interdisciplinary Scientific and Practical Journal” of Russian studies programs on reflexivity, produced by Editor-in-Chief: V.E. Lepsky.

One final thought is, ‘iff’ we could all realize these simple truths presented, we could maybe start to see more clearly the real issues troubling our world, as by this author’s realizations of the powers represented above, he’s already able to see human behavior’s influence and control of all our difficulties. Were a large enough group of citizens able to access these most inner reaches of their retroductive, abductive, and reflexive mechanics of their souls and minds, we could surely come together with the goals of de-conflating all the world’s now conflated ideas, and truly work toward solving our planet’s greatest and real problems. It’s this author’s hope that we will do__just this…

The aesthetic/esthetic soul has been physically/mentally discovered...

A Triadic Logic, Universal Processing Engine

p.s.
You may want to read previous posts for graphs, tables and clarity of the above...

(A Note To A Friend) 'The Sacred Logic' Here's the newest discovery. As per that last post; 'The Logic of Self, Creating Self, Within The Greater Self', whereas the natural visions we passively take into our little ol' pea-brains, are actually the primary causes of all our actions, i.e., Tis the primary pragmatic web(physical world) controller of our entire semantic web(mental world), and personal nature , that is; The images form the visions within our brains, and are the primary source of all our communications and actions. This primary vision field is the prime cause of all our continuous thoughts and actions. It's an entirely analogical(visionary) inductive thought processing engine, from and of the primary, secondary and tertiary, etc., fields' mechanics... May sound too mechanical, but the spirit works in mysterious ways__Just ask a photon... :)

This is 'The Sacred Logic', and it's purely passive nature...

It's so simple, it almost seems stupid, but it's what it is...

Now, my triadic signature below is more easily explained. Causes and effects exist simultaneously, i.e., the effects are/create the causes, just as much as the causes are/create the effects, in 'the absolute'... May take some time to see this, but it matches the reflexive control of cognitive psychology and logic, of both Russia's and America's deepest military studies programs...

Links for larger version of graphics...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2QxI45oGwKI/SpNTP2Y69RI/AAAAAAAAAA4/dpvWYsLRwsM/s1600-h/Reflexivity.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2QxI45oGwKI/SpNXGeT8k8I/AAAAAAAAABA/0mWhYIT7x-I/s1600-h/PeirceMil.jpg



--
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.”

Thursday, August 13, 2009

One Lucid Diamond...

America’s seminal economist, Dr. Paul Davidson, has written the clearest vision of money and math mechanics, to date. Not since the 18th century’s true mathematical logicians, De Morgan, Jevons, Clifford, Peirce and Veblen, have scientific ideas of logic, money and math mechanics been laid so clearly before our eyes. Mr. Davidson begins with a simple explanation of a true scientific method, any high school student can easily understand, then exposes the fallacies in relation to and of the classical economists’ and mathematicians’ mistakes, of economic model mis-applications and mis-interpretations of. He reveals his entire thesis in a simple dialectic method any gifted 5th grade student could understand, by keeping the technicalities to his other 22 published books, and some 200 articles. Never before, in the history of economics, has so much been revealed by such a simple, yet scientific, method.

As an example, Mr. Davidson, shows how the ‘universal’ facts, habits and ambitions of money, control the ‘particular’ events of all economic history. He does this by revealing Keynes’ true vision of how all nations’ balance of payments’ imbalances and hoarding, actually starves the world of its productive employment potential. This is truly where all macro-economic theses should start, yet sadly almost all other classical macro-economists see not the forest for the trees. It’s taken America’s yet unrecognized genius, Paul Davidson, to point this very fact out. He further exposes this first and foremost generating problem, creating the other unrecognized problems’ mechanics with and in ‘the ergodic theory’, ‘the neutrality of money theory’, ‘comparative advantage theory’, ‘free-trade theory’, ‘efficient market theory’, ‘the incompatibility theory of mobile money and full employment’, and all really generated from the fundamental ‘balance of payments’ imbalances and hoarding theory and facts’, just as Keynes originally stated and implied them, in his total works, published and unpublished, private and governmental letters, etc.

After clearly and succinctly showing the relationships between true Keynesian theories and facts, against classical mis-interpretations of the same theories and facts, Davidson easily explains his extended Keynesian solution, to the world’s present problems. This is done through his recognition of the world’s need for not only a new ‘re-regulation of financial markets and trade’, but also his, as it was Keynes’, call for a new ‘international financial architecture’, to rebalance the world’s prices, money and currency contracts. Davidson has updated Keynes’ ideas to a 21st century feasible plan of fundamental economic and highly possible political actions, the world sorely needs.

Never before has an economic book impressed me as much as this little treatise, as I see it having the potential of reaching not only the academic economists, but most all political, academic and intellectual elites, along with many private citizens. This is what the nation and world really and truly needs__a clear and concise manual to explain and solve the world’s massive problems. Davidson has succeeded as no other in accomplishing this job…

L.A.Gillespie
…autodidactic, polymathic economist, logician, etc…