The Awakening of The American Mind

What Happens When A Nation Gets Nukes...?

2012-01-18T09:22:00.000-08:00

What Happens When A Nation Gets Nukes...?

Sixty Years of History Suggests An Answer...
by Fabius Maximus

The Triadic Predicate...

2012-01-07T16:29:00.001-08:00

(my amazon review: http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Peirce-Selected-Philosophical-1893-1913/dp/0253211905 )

Imo, no genius exists on Earth, the extent__scope, depth and breadth__of C.S. Peirce; and these two exquisite volumes certainly do represent the best ordered collection of his complete life's work available__that is as per his early ideas, as well as his mature thoughts. I especially thought his 'normative' and 'nomological' perspectives were the best that's ever been written, even to this day__and that includes of the 100's/1000's of present secondary authors, who have written about Peirce... Peirce is not only the world's foremost logician, he's also the world's foremost epistemologist, esthetician and rhetorician. As the previous rewiewer noted; "His knowledge was immense and he is the only person that I know of who equals Aristotle." I couldn't agree more, and I being 67 years young, have read most all the philosophers, mathematicians, logicians, estheticians and rhetoricians...

My assessment rests on a lifelong study of philosophy, as well as the last 10 years being spent researching all links, books and materials available about Peirce. I've also visited his homestead, and the museum down the street, in Milford, Penn__It's really a shame more hasn't been done, by our Gov., to more thoroughly commemorate this greatest of America's public servants... If you want the philosophical truth between 'The Continental' and 'The Analytic' schools of thought, then this man's 'Pragmatism' is for you, as it's all Peirce's own, in only the way he could tell it, though he credits all the authors throughout history, who's shoulders he stands upon__He also offers the most honest assessments of all the other philosophers, he chooses fit to mention, or dis-mention...

I've been reading all the world's major philosophers, for years__but, it's always a pleasure to return to the master of em all__Peirce... As a matter of fact, I've had this book for over a month, but saved it for 1-1-2012, to start the new year off right__what a pleasure it's been... I don't think there's a word been said in philosophy, since Peirce's death, that can't be 'research-chased' back to this massive intellect__and that's no exaggeration, as it's been the largest part of my personal research project, over the last 10 years, of which I'm presently preparing an academic paper, and a few books. If anyone were to just type Peirce's name into Google, with a space + space, then type any important philosophical author after, since Peirce's late 1860's ideas on, and truly research the links, as to his primacy of ideas__you'll find em, as they exist, especially if the subjects of philosophy are also link searched__as that's simply how I found all the information linking Peirce to all modernity's most important philosophical ideas__pre-dating what academics has presently given false credits to other lessers__Just check out 'Peirce Law' as a primer, or his 1870 books on 'Boolean Logics and Maths...'

I've never been more impressed by one man's total ideas, than by Peirce's, and I'm basically an economist, who uses Peirce's logic to improve my economic writings... I recommend these two volumes, more than anything in print__as imo, it takes Peirce's 'critical common sense' logic, to even begin to understand all the other subjects' ideas, especially in today's overly hyped World__He's by far, the most grounded man on Earth...

Currency Wars On The Horizon__2011 to 2012…

2011-11-15T13:06:00.000-08:00

You ain’t seen nothing yet__You wait till this specialty form of economic war gets under way… You think markets collapsed in Sept. `08, no, no, no__that was just the starting flag being dropped, for when a true currency war comes into full swing__all nations will bear the brunt of a storm so huge, you’ll wish for the devil to be in power, to solve such tremendous personal carnage. The last time the world experienced a major currency war__It brought us Hitler, and WWII, and all global foreign exchange markets had to be closed for twenty years, not opening again until 1957__under completely new law and trade structures…

What will such a currency trade panic truly bring…? So far, we’ve only witnessed about a 10% downturn in the real world economy. A full blown currency war will add another 15% to 20% downturn onto the already highly stressed global economies. Just what is a currency war…? It’s when all nations fear losing more jobs to other nations’ cheaper labor currency markets, and are actually losing more jobs than the public will put up with, so the local social unrest drives the politicians to make drastic policy action changes__which interprets into cheap currencies require physically and legally adjusting one’s own currencies to cheaper currency levels__which turns into a free-for-all of every nation copying the same policies__thus further destroying the internal credit values, just as China and India are presently doing, and many others also. But, when the larger and more important global economies get into this huge gambler’s game__the real markets start to topple__the major bond markets, which further implodes the rest of what’s left of these larger economies internal credit survival capacities__and turns to thoroughly negative credit productivities__and possibly the worst forms of social unrest imaginable…

So, if you think you’ve seen many people losing their houses already__you ain’t seen nothing yet. The scramble between government policy necessities, beyond these government’s monetary control and abilities, and the desire of the public to stay in their homes and feed their families, will become so acute__Marshal law will have to be declared in many countries__until the bimbos in power re-educate themselves to what was required back in the 1930’s, as this information is now most forgotten, and the ones that do understand it, are not in power positions, as they’ve been ostracized by the major academic and political pinheads, to the status of heterodox madmen, and are not listened to by hardly anyone in present power positions. Yet, the heterodox thinkers are actually the only ones who do know this old 1930’s history and truth, and the world’s very survival will hinge on how quickly the societies can push the proper people into the power positions__that will be absolutely needed. This scenario of power transition is completely unknown, as to how long this will take__but most likely the civil unrest, from a major global currency war will speed its occurrence… Let’s hope not too many starve, or are killed, before the nations awake…

Just an early warning, as many nations are already headed down this highly dangerous road… If you think you wanted collapse, to improve the system, you may just get your wish__but, it certainly won’t be as pretty as you may think…

Love And Madness__Rationality And Generative Wisdom And Justice…

2011-10-13T08:31:00.000-07:00

The child is born peering into a world of pure love and madness. S/he’s been gifted with the potential to grow and develop into the greatest being the world has ever produced__but the obstacles to the possibilities of such growth are profound, beyond the recognition of not only the child, but the adult community as well. The child, with its pure state of observational modal thought and vision, clearly sees the love and beauty directed toward its being__but, on the other hand also clearly sees all the dysfunctional evil of the adult and peer communities directed toward it as well. How is s/he going to navigate this ocean of confused and conflated thoughts and actions…???

Some children are lucky enough to be born into homes with two loving and well adjusted parental adults__while others are born into a living hell, all the way from mixed dysfunctionality, to partial dysfunctionalities of certain members of immediate family and close relatives and friends of the immediate family. For the ones born into these more dysfunctional families__the child peers into a split personality, often so great, it may seem near impossible to navigate. Let’s say our child Jack, at age three is just beginning to become aware of his surroundings and finds them not being as happy as he may have liked them to be. He sees his mother mentally and physically abusing his younger sister, yet showing over-disproportional love for him. His father is passive to most all around him, being more rational and just not wanting to involve himself in all life’s emotional intrigues. His grandfather is abusing his grandmother a bit, but not too much. His grandmother, having a split personality, due to class conflicts between her family and her husband’s, is first offering all the love and kindness one can muster__then out of the other side of this lady’s mouth comes the most vile attacks against all adults and children in her path. Her mother, the great grandmother, since everyone is living under her roof, is the monster ruling the home with an iron fist, and a meanness of spirit no better than an ancient Roman Emperor. Jack’s grandfather, the old patriarch of the family, reserved yet protective of his mental turf, is usually quite conservative, but quite often pushed by ol’ great-grand-ma into wild fits of rage, that practically blows the roof off the big ol’ farmhouse__the cows, chickens, pigs and horses run for cover__the cherries shrivel up and die, an fall off the trees…

It’s quite a minefield of dysfunctionality this new king of virgin spirit and soul has been born into__and people wonder why the world isn’t a better place to live...? There isn’t a family on Earth that doesn’t have some of this same dysfunctionality hidden in one of its many closets. So, what’s Jack to do with his young life, when faced with all this love and madness…? He awakes every day, stumbles down the stairs, and is first met by his grumbling great-grand-ma, never having a kind or nice word to speak says; “Did you forget to wash your hands and face?”, since the stairway door opened directly into the kitchen, where she’d be preparing breakfast for the four generation tribe, living under her roof. Jack, sneering as much as he could get away with, since he’d already had his mouth washed out with soap, by this beast, grumbled to himself and washed up__only to next meet the new day’s conflicts and arguments. Jack, to himself is saying; “Let me get my breakfast and get outta’ this madhouse….” First though are his morning chores, whether it be collecting eggs or feeding the farm animals and bringing in more wood for the coming winter, as even at three he’s been given his chores, but after this, he’s free to roam around on his own, as there’s no danger on the farm, except during bear cub season and an occasional bob-cat, in winter...

Jack, now outside and thinking to himself, wonders how long before his sister’s chores will take to be done, so’s he’ll have a playmate__and further wonders how much talking he’ll have to endure to revive his beautiful younger sister from the damage he realizes is being heaped on her each day, while doing her chores, eating, playing or whatever__as he’s experienced this most every day of his yet very young life… Usually his sister exits the house either in tears or so angry it takes Jack as much as an hour of cajoling her to revive her beautiful play spirit back to functionality__but he realizes this is becoming more difficult with each passing week. He knows he’s losing the beautiful spirit of his sister as a playmate, and clearly sees it as the abuse coming from the spiritually violent home environment she must endure__while he being older, has learned more how to con his way with everyone, and navigate the wiles of these internal home evils__which he’ll never forget…

Jack’s visited far and wide, even at this early age, and has learned other families are even far worse than his, and has yet to find a family in even better shape than his own__and wonders how can this be…? “I’m miserable with my home situation, and yet these others are even worse, with far more abuse clearly visible, to the naked eye…?” “Just what makes my world so evil…?” “I can clearly see through the whole family dynamic, then out into the community dynamic, and my family employs many of the town’s people, and my uncle is about the most miserable man I’ve ever met, which now runs the major family farm’s business enterprizes__so is it the fact that this business abuse runs clear from the top down…?” And yes, as Jack would later learn from deep conversations from his grand-dad__the problem is endemic from the largest corporations, to the smaller corporations and businesses, all the way to the bottom of family employment in these abusive entities__and it’s nothing but a trickle-down effect of global abuse, from a money system__no-one is wise enough to repair…

Well, this is a pretty simple system, and was taught to Jack by the age of seven, to be no more than this simple psychology of otherwise logical actions__but with his love being pushed into madness at such an early age by family circumstances__he’s thinking; “How many times does my innocent lil’ ol’ frame have to endure such abuse…?” Little did Jack know at the time, this love and madness circus would rear its ugly head, almost all throughout his future life__and most of these problems would come directly from his very own upbringing. First was his mother, grand-mother and great-grand-mother pushing his and his beautiful and caring sister’s feelings into hells of madness, no child should have to endure__then the early hell of religious and mystical brainwashing, taking place every day, mainly from his bi-polar mother, who was loving and caring one second, and terrorizing of spirit, mind and soul, the next second__which would lead into all the areas of madness a pure innocent soul could barely endure...

Not only was Jack to endure all these early stage madnesses, but at about age 12 to 15, he’d be pushed into one of the worst hell’s he’d ever thought possible__as this one would completely clean out his functioning emotional mind, and leave nothing but a raw functioning rational and logical soul__of pure emotional hell. This was the age of first loves turning to pure unimaginable hell, created by the over-forced religious brain-washing, by church and female members of a deeply fanatically religious family. Few can imagine the hell a mind goes through when love, religion, sexuality and rational reality collide__so head-on, the mind is actually pulverized completely. Now Jack, aged 15, must wander into the social world with an emotionless mind, except for anger__yet still retaining all his raw childhood soul memories, as they be too overwhelming to forget, and how’s he to function__other than as a Wildman…?

Well wildman, Jack thus became__jumping from one idea, hobby, intent, woman to another quicker than a frog playing leap-frog__but his emotions’ only tied more and more into a tighter knot than they’d ever been before__and through possession after possession, girlfriend after girlfriend and wife after wife, Jack finally hit the end-game wall__his entire brain/mind exploded from its raw reason and logic into pure psychological emotionalism__another hell, even deeper than all the hells he’d thus far experienced, as this one had no true feet on the ground, for its necessary guidance__what-so-ever. This newest self was lost in the self of itself__wandering in a soup of every conceivable idea the world has ever known__a virtual being in a canoe on and ocean of all knowing and all unknowing__all at once, being thrown into a very over-taxed brain/mind/soul. How in hell was Jack ever going to find his path back to any form of sanity…?

All Jack knew for sure were a few simple truths he’d always relied on all throughout his life__“For every action, there’s an opposite and equal reaction”, and “Fight fire with fire…” So Jack latched onto these two premises and ventured into what he’d hated most all his life__the study of the psychology of emotions, since it’s the emotions of emotions he’s now trapped in__but where to start. Well, it was religion and the deep psychological problems of, that drove him into this final cavern, so he decided a full exploration of all the world’s many religions would be one place to start, but since Jack had always been one to mix all his ideas in a stew of motives and intents, he also included all the psychologies and anthropologies he could put his hands on__to study as well…

Never did Jack realize where this would lead, through all the ancient mysticisms, such as the Tibetan Book of The Dead, and The Egyptian Book of The Dead, Zoroastrianism, Totemism, Animism, I Ching, Brahmanism, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Judaism, Christianity, Islamism, etc., on and on, all the way through Satanism and all the occult systems and tribal Shamanisms. But all this study only led to a further hell__being narrowed in cultural beliefs to the point this path of study finally came to a dead-end in a near suicide attempt__because there seemed to be no way out of this last form of madness, where Jack’s soul had been mangled by all the great traditions, that were so touted to be the cure-all for such problems__but were clearly not the path for this tormented mind and soul to take__so what was left…?

Jack, with gun in hand, heading to blow his head off, knocked over a pile of encyclopedia yearbooks, and out fell the science yearbook to lil’ ol’ Einstein’s quote; “The secret of the old one.” And snap__immediately Jack’s mind turned back onto the path of reason and logic, which the emotional hell had blocked from his view for some ten years__so now he knew his future path was to renew the earlier path he’d attempted some 15 years earlier__to find that ever existing rationality and modal logic of the generative wisdom and true justice…

“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

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Triadic Mind’s Eye__A Voyage Inside The Stereo-Graphic Mind’s Eyes…

When you look inside your mind, how far do you see…? Can you see both inside and outside your mind’s eye, or eyes…? Do you see a dyadic or a triadic+ multiplicity of its innate mechanics…? Do, or can you, see the stereo-graphic meeting of both hemisphere’s of your brain, as they both produce the independent images filtering into your mind’s eyes’ memory and perception spaces…? Just how far can you see into the biology of the deep extra-logical stereo-graphic sight, of your own mind…? Can you even see inside of your own mind’s eye, or just what it is seeing…? I know we’re all different, but I’m just wondering how different…???

Have you ever tried to go through that last and deepest closed door in your mind__or do you even dare open that last and deepest door…? I mean that when you are totally alone and contemplating those most scary depths of your mind, whether just an uncomfortable spot, or some area you feel holds possibly great evil, or some sorcery or witchcraft area__does such an area exist in your contemplating…? Well, it does in my mind, and has since I was a child. When I was real young, I was always afraid to enter the depths of my deepest thoughts, but when I got older, I even tried my damndest to pry open the door I knew had existed since childhood__but it wouldn’t open, until one day, it just flew open on its own__and such a flood-gate of information fell into my mind__it’s practically impossible to explain, but anyway__I’m gonna’ attempt it… I see this area as the fundamental mechanics of intuition__a mind’s eyes’ mechanics of perception, creativity, imagination and conception. I see this as the mind’s eyes’ extra-logical stereo-graphic sight, where the mind is filled to overflowing with initial information, feeding into memory, perception and later from these sources, producing our intuitional choices of this vast flood of informations and visions__as there’s really nothing to do with this much initial information capacity, except to try and focus one’s attention as much as possible into either intuitional or imaginational understandings__then on into either viable perceptions or self-constructed conceptions__whichever your choice may be…

Have you ever looked into your mind, and been completely overwhelmed by the shear amount of images to choose from, and how to filter em…? If so, where are they coming from…? I’ve always accepted the theory that all our super-objective ideas actually are accessible through our super-subjective apparatus, just as easily as our direct objective perception apparatus__but that all information comes from these two sources, though the super-subjective sources be the majority of our present moment sources__but where’d the initial super-subjective sources come from…? If I use objective conceptualism, I can see the mind’s eye-ism as a form of memory space mechanics, deriving information from the mind’s eyes’ deep fundamental direct, and indirect memory images__stored there through the entire course of life, by the automatic induction method of nature, herself. By this I mean, the natural perception taking in what it feels, sees, hears, tastes and smells__all its life, then storing this data in memory__and with our extra-logical sorting, to different memory spaces. To me, the initial conditions are this simple__but, do you actually realize how tremendously huge the giga-bites of global information this life storage system would really be…? And herein lies the complexity behind this door many are afraid to open__where the largest multitude of visions reside…

Open it, there’s nothing to be afraid of__the visions of what you’ll see will certainly amaze you__no matter what you think__all it takes is deep, deep concentration… It’s simply the gateway into seeing directly inside the mind’s eye and into intuition’s deepest secrets, even creativity’s secrets hide there__and epiphanies as well as lucid visions. As a matter of fact, it’s also the door to the gates of wisdom, though wisdom must be recognized as a generative process, or an evolving intelligence of the entire global bio-sphere… Once inside this amazing world, one can easily see how perception and abstracting information into the mind’s eyes’ conceptualism truly works__as the objective mind’s eye mechanics is simply the self-constructed conceptual inference mechanics, that can even be represented as the algebra of concepts, and has been by many, ever since Herbart’s first algebra of concepts, back in the late 1800’s, but anyway, I won’t go into these technicalities now… Going through this deepest of inner doors in the mind only requires perception’s deep extra-logical focusing, and concentration on entering a room in your mind, that holds a gold-mine of information, knowledge and wisdom__at least the view of what generative wisdom and pure justice truly are…

I know it’s a scary place to enter, as I’ve talked to many through the years about this very area of thought and vision__and many became freaked out to even discuss such depths of the mind__clearly deeper than what the average person is used to conversation going… This is going beyond all bounds of personal comfort, into the deepest personal and psychological exploration of self-contemplation__where you can actually see the very inner innate mechanics of the entire bio-brain, in action…

Follow, if you dare__It’s only self-knowledge__It won’t hurt you… I can state, those who did follow greatly benefited in understanding the subjective and objective inter-actions of their and others actions…

A Possible Science of Shamanism and Para-Psychology, Plus Extras…

2011-10-12T13:32:00.000-07:00

I'm thinking what I posted below, may be able to be expanded upon__to possibly get to the heart of a simpler way of seeing the deeper, broader and more complex intelligence agendas. I don't really know yet, but I thought I'd just throw out a few ideas of how I happened to stumble a bit deeper into, what I'd consider the center of the brain, years ago__as I seriously believe as Uspensky stated years ago; "The super-objective state of mind, is found in the super-subjective state of mind..."

Now let me just say a few words about this__I studied and practiced Shamanism and para-psychology for about ten years, back in the `70's, as at that time, I'd more or less abandoned the academic and scientific worlds__as having drifted far too far from what I considered the common sense knowledgeable ground of reality and science__That's some 40 years ago... I made a ten year investigation of most all nations' native tribes, anthropologically, and through all the ancient and modern literature I could find about Shamanism, and its related psychologies and para-psychologies. Of course this required studying all the ancient religions as well, clear back to all the potlatch and phallic worship stages... The potlatch I found was the old tribal law systems for punishing greed, among other tribal dis-allowances. Phallic worship seemed to be more for centering power and worship toward the kings and shamans, to create community harmony__really an innocent purpose in those early eras, as greed was punished, and power was needed to defend the small communities... Often, the shamans were also kings__but, what did I learn about modern intelligence by studying and practicing this early form of Shamanism and relating it to the modern forms of para-psychology being most deeply studied by the Russian KGB, at the time...?

I learned how far the powers of the mind, whether straight_or on drugs_could be pushed without excessively harming itself or others__how deep an understanding of the mind's pure intellectual and emotional capacities reach__and exactly how much power either or both the emotional and intellectual sides of the mind are truly capable of... Before I investigated to this level of understanding, I was under the false illusion that the mind was truly capable of accomplishing almost unimaginable feats of both emotional and intellectual power. My greatest realization was to learn these were drastically false assumptions. Yes, the mind can be pushed, especially on the powers of LSD and a few other hallucinogenic drugs_to do some pretty amazing mind control scenarios__but almost never repeatable as to the desired scientific results. Yes, the mind does have the capacity on LSD to manipulate small crowds of people, but not in a totally controlled scientific fashion__but in a hap-hazzard way__being set by more the chemistry of the brain and the surrounding psychological settings. The Russians found these same results also, and finally most abandoned para-psychology research__except of course as pertains to propaganda__which addresses your point L_____ about the guy with the first blog post agenda__being set by pure propaganda, to swage others opinions to his desired goal__Bigotry...

So, though shamanism and para-psychology can not be scientifically effectively used for outright mind-control__these fundamental sourced ideas do have a tremendous power through the power of propaganda and suasion, to influence whole nations' agendas and intelligences__which most people are totally unaware of... In fact, at this very moment in history, the far left is trying to resurrect the old story of 'The Jewish Cemetary of Prague' a known Russian forgery conspiracy of an old 19th century book's satire about the Jews__It's just one of the modern world's new pseudo-conspiracies entering the top of all the web searche engines__the hard left are so gullible of falling for__'Zeitgeist on Steroids...'

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi L_____, and thanks for the question...

Modal thinking imo, first started with Socrates, in his playful manner of questioning the youth of Athens. As the article above also points out, Aristotle also mentioned quite a bit about modal thinking. The first I'm aware of it really being expanded upon is by the debates between Biruni and Ibn Sina when discussing his extensions of Aristotle's logic system, and adding in a rudimentary quaternion thought system, and his 'Flying Man' analogy of his metaphor of thinking and pure thought. The next to take up what the Persians had extented logic to be understood as, was Albertus Magnus, the teacher of St. Thomas Acquinas__then to the scholastics Scotus and Ocham... This was all as relates to modal thinking and modal logics, then described as the 'logica utens' and the 'logica docens'__which I believe is Magnus' interpretations of the Persians...

Muse of course goes back to early times also, as music and musing about our thoughts, but really takes on its modern form in Scotus' and Ocham's works__who were the midieval periods’ deepest thinkers. Both these men did extreme musings about the depths of thought about thought__or the modal logic, as it's become known since a short time after Scotus and Ocham. The play aspect of musing and modal thought seems to have more entered in the 18th and 19th centuries, in several different philosophers works, as they realized this deep thinking about thinking, many of us do, is actually ourselves playing with the thoughts in our minds, so deep, the easiest way to track it seems to be to make it a mind-game, such thinkers as myself choose to do__to recover the deeper meanings and actions of thought. I think it was Peirce to be the first one to connect all the pieces together, from the ancients to the moderns__that the deepest logics were much like children playing, as it's a flow of information processing that works much as children at play...

Peirce didn't put 'Modal Muse' together, but my interpretation of all these ideas just sorta evolved into uniting the two phrases together, especially after listening to so much Cat Stevens' music about his 'Muse...' It's in this album... LINK...

So, I'm the guilty one for inventing the phrase, 'Modal Muse'__but with all the historical perspective I'm looking at, it's quite apt. I've been toying with this area of thought for years now, and I finally saw through it all the way, because we are taking up Socrates next week, at our Philosophy meeting__and it's about his modal musing thinking in this area__and by all the pieces coming together at once__it just came out as the 'Modal Muse...' It's just a simple and fun way of doing deep philosophical logic thinking... A little playfulness makes it easier...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

All modal intelligence has an agenda__The 'Modal Muse' is our 'self-designed/designer intelligence decision engine' at the deepest levels of all our brains. No-one can escape the fact that they are either playing the modal muse of emotions against intellect, or the modal muse of intellect against emotions. Seldom does anyone abandon their core agenda of their deepest felt modal operator/explicand/operand state__It's the C.I.A. of all our puny brains__That lil' ol' 'central intelligence agency' called our 'Modal Muse...'

Some think they can hide their agendas__none can hide these agendas from everyone__'You can fool some of the people all the time, some of the people some of the time, but never all the people, all the time...'

Few have the ability to stand in the middle, and purposely switch between 'Modal Muse' modes of intelligences...

The simple actionable 'Free-Will Modal Muse' stands guard over all__sitting/relaxing with the 'Muse of Laughter...'

"Never take the world seriously. It doesn't take itself seriously..."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“Thank you for your reply in detail, Lloyd and congratulations on coining a new phrase. In doing a quick search, I was unable to come up with 'Modal Muse' in phrase, only other variants, and therefore my question to you regarding origin.

You have long suggested that anyone can understand the mechanism by which they actually utilize their mind, if they but apply themselves to the task. (Excuse me if I have phrased this not exactly as you intend, yet that was the meaning that I gleaned.)

From long observation of persons in similar circumstances who make dramatically different choices, and so arrive at completely different outcomes, I now would ask how you have come to the determination that 'all modal intelligence has an agenda'.”

Hi L______, and thanks again for the excellent question to take the analysis even deeper still...

Since the dawn of time, humanity has been trying to more deeply understand the functioning of the lil' ol' ball sitting atop our shoulders__at differing periods, this investigation has advanced, and at other times of many varried cultures__it has receded, in the effectiveness of the intelligence discoveries. What was earlier known becomes lost, obscured or outright changed__and societies have gone all directions of discovery and obscuration of the quest__This I think is un-debatable__But, the question must be asked as to 'Why...???' When we just ask this simple question, we quickly realize a much deeper investigation is warrented. All throughout the ages, the deepest investigators have been the philosophers, especially the epistemic and modal logicians and mathematicians__even though psychologists have also investigated the same areas of intelligence evolution and devolution__they have never developed the elaborate system of categories and models of understanding this complex ball o' mush, as have the philosophers__with their many avenues of investigative mind sciences. If you were able to do a total historical survey, I think you'd come to the same conclusions__as the psychologists never developed a way of defining the distinctions between belief and certainty__as have the philosophers__though the modern world has greatly confused and conflated these category distinctions and mechanics of understanding, the many philosophers helped to define. Where psychology lacks the best tools is in their inability to have ever produced a scientific method to defease/divide beliefs from experiential exaggerations into sound and reasonable facts__whereas philosophy, even as far back a Plato devised elaborate category systems to do and understand just this...

Upon my extensive reading of all history's psychologists and philosophers, I deemed necessary, as it was becoming a repeat of informations, I had amassed enough insight to see how these two sides of the mind functioned__all throughout history__at least satisfactory to my mind's insatiable thirst... And, what I realized was the fact that the philosophers, and especially the epistemologists and logicians were the clearest and best at keeping experiential ideas in the categories where they belonged, and also keeping the sciences of the world in the categories where they belonged__In fact, they all produced, or at least used others' category lists, all throughout history__In fact__Plato's categories lists can still be generally effectively used even today. Now, where the experiential psychologists were concerned, even if they produced categories lists as have many, such as Maslow and Batesman have__neither they nor any other psychologists honor the more profound and thoroughly more intricate categories of the philosophers, mathematicians and logicians__which sets psychology apart from history's flow of information, which in turn creates a very incomplete and narrower minded psychology system__as a whole__than is philosophy... This is all cultures' major difference evolution at the core agenda level of all psyches involved__It starts in the evolution of systems, and moves down through the cultures...

This is the main fact contributing to the modal intelligences' agendas you asked about__It's according to which school of thought one is more apt to adhere to__and this is in no way to be a concrete fact__as there are many people like you, I and others who do not fall into either of these categories__but do have the ability of knowing our free-will choices to jump from one side of the psychological experiential systems' thinking, to the philosophical intellectual logical systems' thinking__But, and this is a big But__Most of society is quite trapped emotionally and intellectually in one side or the other__as I noticed in reasearchings so many great and not so great minds of history__and all of us can overly easily notice right here on TQ, if we but look deeply enough at the wording... It may take a deeper understanding of possible wording associations for average and general minds to see this__but, I assure you it's there from my experience of seeing it in history and here at TQ__and is the source of the opposing intelligence agendas__And when anyone is pushed to the breaking point of their modal agendas__they will most always fall to one side or the other of the experiential emotional agenda__or to the experiential intellectual agenda... As I stated in earlier posts__'Only a few have the mental fortitude to hold the middle ground of absolute observation__without experiential modal agenda action taking center stage...' We are all guilty of this, including myself... I can point it out from my vast experience__but that doesn't mean I can be absolutely true to my own knowledge of it__at the same time... That's life...

“Certainly, I like to believe that it is the result of my own choices in the face of circumstances that the opportunity of life affords that has gotten me thus far on the journey, yet oftentimes I suspect that I have no agenda save to enjoy the most experiencing while avoiding both the giving or receiving of resistance or stress.

The path of least resistance, yet not really, as it seems that while I avoid challenge (save for good old physical sweat, lol....) challenge often seeks me out.

If each has their own agenda, and many seemingly unaware, that is a path for ponder. While I have ever reserved the option of choice, I tend to be user friendly in that I trust nature to supply the options. Thus far, nature has not disappointed me. That privilege has been reserved unto my fellow beings, myself included.”

Well L_______, from my observation of the motivated operations of individuals, most__all their lives__would never even consider they may have an agenda, and live happily to their death without realizing one way or the other__But, if any were asked to seriously contemplate such as their own agendas may be__What do you think the answers may be...???

Then, especially if pushed to confront these deep experiential motives__What do you think the outcomes would be__and the %'s of...???

I think it would be very surprising for all to actually see and realize their true operational agendas broadcast to all the people they meet__I think you'll find__most people are more afraid of these true experiential agendas being seen through__than all the poverty, greed and crime on Earth__because this would expose the truth of how the Rich are actually usurping the private ownership of all nations' peoples' rights and well-being__and slowly but surely, installing all property in their own private pockets__The truth of modern computerized market mechanics of 'The Global Corporate State...'__as long as the people's modal agenda__stays asleep...!!!

Remember__Inaction is as much of a modal agenda, as is action...

Hope I'm not being too pushy__but the world's on fire...

INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING...

2011-10-03T18:11:00.001-07:00

A NEW MONETARY SYSTEM for THE ELECTROSPHERE
©LLOYD GILLESPIE
[HOME PAGE] [E-MAG]
[INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING MECHANICS]
[TRIPLE ENTRY BANKING MECHANICS]
[INTRODUCTION TO INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING]
[TABLE OF CONTENTS]
Date: 12-25-02 21:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"All problems using crude money must be overcome to survive the future eco-techno-electrosphere."

"Since the first wave agricultural revolution only required simple single entry banking –– and the second wave industrial revolution invented and required double entry banking –– then the third wave technological revolution [will] invent and [require] "TRIPLE ENTRY BANKING.""

In 1982 I empirically discovered an entirely new capitalist monetary system. This system is in direct evolution with the existing system. It is fully compatible with all known forms of money systems –– past – present – or future. The system is INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING –– TRIPLE ENTRY BANKING – a transactions truth. This new monetary system can be implemented cost free and effectively either unilaterally or globally. It can be instituted on a percentage basis from one percent, to twenty percent –– its most cost effective and productive percentage of operations' basis.

In this short paper, I will explain why I feel a new monetary system is necessary –– what it exactly is –– and how to painlessly implement it. First, I will discuss the present capitalist system to make clear why such a new system is needed. I will frame my discussion on four tenets –– demographics –– jobs and wages –– the present floating exchange rate non-regime –– and the technological revolution.

Many falsely believe the miracle of capitalist markets will cure all our future problems. Let me see if I can change your mind, to show markets of the future may need some new help. The most glaringly obvious problem is one of demographics alone. With the nation five trillion dollars in debt and both political parties fighting for the next spendable penny, when we at present don't yet have a demographic problem –– where do you think the money is coming from to support the retirement of the massive increase of baby-boomers?

This is not only a problem of our nation, but that of all industrial nations and many of the world's lesser nations as well. Japan has been flat on its economic back for five years now. Europe also has flat growth, high unemployment, massive debts, and intolerable rates of taxation. We need say little of the lesser nations as everyone is well aware of their bankrupt conditions. If we are short of the necessary funds now, what nation or group of nations is going to grow enough to resolve the present quagmire –– let alone the future's massive demographic increase of tax burdens? How will they grow? What economic incentives and organizations are presently planned and feasible? Are they capable of meeting future needs? I simply ask you to be the judge.

If nations are to grow their way out of the demographic problems of the future, where are the jobs and wages necessary to do so coming from? At present we are downsizing every economy in the world –– with massive mergers, outsourcing, and layoffs. Wages for forty to fifty percent of the population of America alone have declined over the last twenty years. Yes, it is true some at the top have benefited precipitously –– but at the cost of the bottom? High skilled jobs, such as unions, have shrunk dramatically –– from thirty-six percent of the work force to sixteen percent of the workplace. Are these evidences of true growth in jobs and wages over the last twenty years ––– as many would have us believe? And they fight against an increase in the minimum wage! Where will jobs and wages come from when the computer-robotic-revolution displaces more human workers ––– daily?

I don't mean to sound pessimistic, as I am not. I am only painting a true picture of present capitalism's stature. The system I am proposing –– INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING –– is thoroughly optimistic. So bear with me while I make my points about the present system's problems.

If you think these problems can be easily solved by conventional policy and market performance, you know little of the workings in the foreign exchange markets. These markets exist wherever a foreign exchange takes place –– sort of everywhere and nowhere. They exist everywhere a computer-telephone link is, and nowhere is there any real control. This system is an absolute free-for-all buying, selling, and swapping trillions of dollars and other currencies around the world at the speed of light twenty-four hours a day –– three-sixty-five days a year. The global transactions' figures presently stand somewhere between two-hundred-fifty and two-hundred-seventy-five trillion dollars per year. They are well over a trillion dollars per business day.

In order to understand the above, you must know these markets encompass the Euro-dollar system – the entire foreign exchange system – the forward exchange markets – the entire international banking system – interest, goods, and services arbitrage and hedging – derivatives – swaps – fixed and floating currencies – nations' inflation and tax systems – and all nations' governments and actions –– to mention just a few. The above includes the most intricate and complex of markets in the world. When the courts can't even understand these intricate markets –– how are the policy makers supposed to?

Let me give you a clear example of the above. George Soros has stated "Speculators can short the markets a trillion dollars quicker than governments can print it." He should know as he made one billion dollars on one speculative trade in 1993 against the European Economic Community –– which he documented in his book "SOROS ON SOROS". This is no isolated case, I assure you. Andrew Krieger has also written a book of his speculative exploits titled "THE MONEY BAZAAR – Inside the Trillion-Dollar World of Currency Trading." Both these books are excellent first hand sources of information about speculating against the present easily manipulated floating exchange non-system. Systems of this character must change to survive the ever increasing encrypted computerized future.

If you think the above issues can be brought under policy control – of two warring political parties in our country – I think you have missed the boat. Not only is it almost politically impossible in our own country, but it is even more politically unlikely to succeed globally. Internal tension and gridlock prevents local problem solving, while global tensions of Chinese communism, and Islamic fundamentalism prevents international problem solving. For these reasons, I have designed INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING to be instituted and function properly unilaterally –– with the support and respect of both warring political parties –– and to further be complementary to and compatible with external international processes.

Before explaining the above system, we must explore my fourth tenet –– the technological revolution. Professor of history Paul Kennedy has done the definitive work in this area. I would like to add my vision about the future of technology. I can nowheres near compare to the stature of Mr. Kennedy, but I have a unique perspective –– as I am an international currency and market speculator –– with considerable computer and robotics expertise.

Mr. Kennedy has rightfully shown the nightmare scenario we could be headed for if change is not undertaken. For his part of warning us, he has received the title of "Dr. Doom." Not only is his work not about doom, it is the most accurate possible course of history I have seen. We have a choice to let the future play out terribly ––– or to change it for the better. We had better listen to those who have better ideas than our own.

With all nations being forced by competition to adopt the latest advances in technology –– we are locked in an ever increasing scenario of technological evolution. The forces of markets are pushing us closer to a robotic and databased wage and pricing mechanism future. As the power and agility of robots increase, companies and corporations will be forced by competition to implement this new technology –– thus eliminating more human jobs and wages. Already, Japan is re-importing jobs they earlier outsourced to human labor, to be handled by robots cheaper at home. In other words, even some of the third world's labor is losing to robots –– and we have just begun. Databases, once simply a tool of improving efficiency within companies and corporations, are now being employed to handle massive world pricing mechanisms and on time global delivery systems. Competition in this area will be the most fierce, because it is the most cost effective method to improve profits. This area alone will be where massive layoffs of upper income workers will come from. So ––– while robots lay off the bottom tier –– databases lay off the top tier! And if you don't think this is true –– just check out who is tops on the web ––– Digital and Inktomi – the fastest!

The future will see massive increases in the use of robots to eliminate human labor and wages' costs –– competition requires it. We will see massive increases in the use of giant supercomputer databases and on time global delivery systems to eliminate human labor and wages' costs –– competition requires it. These two technologies alone can do nothing but downsize further the entire global economy ––– eliminating massive human work forces and wages –––– for the bottom line –––––––– profits!!!

There is no turning back. We must go forward with new monetary systems.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING – A NEW MONETARY SYSTEM for THE GLOBAL ELECTROSPHERE©LLOYD GILLESPIE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"All problems using crude money must be overcome to survive the future eco-techno-electrosphere."

"Anyone who thinks the use of crude money will not be necessary in the future is crazy!"

"The present electronic world is diminishing collective opportunity ––– fast!"

Over the past two centuries we have built a wondrous spectacle for the rest of the world to emulate. We have set the standards high for civil human conduct and happiness. The moral, ethical, and family stance we take should make us proud and respected. The institutions we have erected set the rest of the world at awe. Our scientific and industrial evolution and strength have revolutionized the entire planet –– especially since the end of WWII... So why do we feel so insecure?

The reason is we have reached economic entropy under the present world monetary systems and organizations. The technology revolution is creating real job and wage decreases as population increases. This is why we feel so insecure and helpless. To this point in time there are no serious conventional solutions being put forth. This is why I am offering an unconventional solution to our present economic stalemate.

On the surface "INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING" is not a difficult system to understand. It is simply a system to reorganize the control of the foreign exchange market to function more efficiently through internal mechanisms instead of external –– thus making more productive use of our or all nations' national debts. This system will stabilize exchange and inflation rates internally and externally when instituted. This is the real solution we truly seek –– to once and for all end inflation and disequilibria of the exchange rate mechanism. Only this solution will increase real jobs and wages in the coming eco-tecno-electronic revolution of the twenty-first century.

Why? You may ask will this system work better than the present one? What? You may ask is this system and how does it work? I should warn you, this system should not be confused with external exchange clearing advocated by Plato and Dr. Paul Einzig –– though they are the inventors of the groundwork of this system. Plato first advocated such a system some twenty-four-hundred years ago, and Dr. Paul Einzig (the WWII Finance Minister of England) has written the only book on exchange clearing I believe to be in print (Exchange Control, Macmillan and Co.1934). "INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING" is simply a higher evolution of these two great men's work.

"INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING" is based on a new framework of laws for existing markets to function under more efficiently. These new laws recognize and solve the existing problems through a one-fifth military style "P.X". and a "TRIPLE ENTRY BANKING" system. You must realize we do not have a production or resource problem. We have a monetary problem the above system solves at no cost to any parties involved. You say, "This is the old free lunch impossibility." I say, "The future being fast diminished by technological evolution requires a semi-free lunch." Notice this system is only a one-fifth change of existing structures –– and when further inspected is even no total change in existing assets. The system I am proposing takes from no-one, yet has the ability to operate semi-philanthropically for the benefit of all.

The one-fifth level mentioned above does not require being instituted at the twenty-percent level. The system can safely evolve to the twenty-percent level in small increments per year –– through the guidance of the new social contract laws we pass. At present, most every nation of the world is governed approximately twenty-percent by the external forces of multinational trade and international financial flows. "INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING" simply moves the control of the functioning of the mechanics of these markets from external malfunction to internal function. It does not change any actual control of these real and complex markets. They are still free to function as is even after institution. The real change only takes place internally, where we set government in competition with existing business at the one to twenty-percent over time level. By this I mean a reduction in present nationalization from its some forty-percent level to its new twenty-percent level. To accomplish the above, a national set price "P.X." will be instituted, where one to twenty-percent of everything from dust to diamonds is available to all comers alike –– citizen and entrepreneur alike. This is a government created independent "P.X" market totally separate from all present existing businesses –– yet set in competition with all existing business to create truly competitive and fair markets for all players and citizens alike. This market by the very existence of its instituted mechanics automatically controls all inflation, exchange rates, and prices into fair and equitable balances –– once and for ever!

The above market will be semi-philanthropically subsidized by the new "TRIPLE ENTRY BANKING" system –– which must be instituted along with the "P.X." and "INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING" systems. The functioning of the above markets' instituted mechanics make the semi-philanthropic system possible. The system will function unilaterally or universally. It is best recommended as a universal system –– though there is nothing to prevent its unilateral success as well. The advantage of multilateral acceptance is the cooperation of all nations advancing in unison to lessen world tensions. The philanthropic percentage could be set by agreement among many or all participating nations' equal ratios of GNP expansions.

I often state,"We need a fixed value monetary system. At the present time, we have none. Under floating exchanges, America is simply a powerful ship on an ocean, with no rudder. Old gold, silver, and other known standards will no longer work. They will not work due to the massive increases in communication's speed, the varied endowments of nations' natural resources, and encrypted international speculative opportunities. Therefore, we need a new system. INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING is such a system. It is an entirely new fixed value enhancing - [production standard] - monetary system, to benefit all humankind."

It all comes down to: "If we set up government – all government – in business, in competition with existing private commercial business –– we can unilaterally make unlimited reasonable use of the printing press!"

Let's stop the ridiculous political and class battles and consider the abilities of the above to solve our problems ––– and once again unite us in all our desired goals and destinies.

Thank you,
L.A. Gillespie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:lloyd.gillespi@gmail.com
web: http://macromouse.blogspot.com

Capitalism's New Game of Global Change...

2011-09-21T09:19:00.000-07:00

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://unfrozenmind.com/
http://unfrozenmind.com/?page_id=75

The Logic of Experience…!!!

“Carefully watch your thoughts
for they will become your words.
Manage and watch your words
for they will become your actions.
Consider and judge your actions
for they will become your habits.
Acknowledge and watch your habits
for they will become your values.
Understand and embrace your values
for they will become your destiny.”
Mahatma Gandhi

“If you think in straight lines, then you will go round in circles…” U.

Whoever marries the story of design and gaming technology with strategy, learning and leadership will create a series of disruptive services that will pioneer the paradigm shift in the business world... T. Coop

Europe's Slide to Default...!

2011-08-23T13:57:00.000-07:00

by Satyajit Das
July 21, 2011

Executed with Northern European creativity, charm, flexibility and humility and Mediterranean organization, leadership diligence and appetite for hard work, the European rescue plan–"the grand compact"–is failing.

Wrong Medicine
The EU response has relied on two mechanisms – the ECB and the European Financial Stability Fund ("EFSF").

The ECB has financed the beleaguered countries by buying their bonds in the secondary market (around euro 75 billion) and also by financing banks, against collateral of increasingly questionable quality such as Greek government bonds. There are allegations that the ECB and other European central banks have also used the euro-zone payments system to lend money (around euro 300 billion) to the crisis-stricken members. All this while the ECB has publicly been critical of banks, which are "addicted" to and substantially reliant on ECB financing.

The "temporary" EFSF due to terminate in 2013 proved poorly designed. Instead of the touted euro 440 billion, the fund had only the ability to lend around euro 250 billion, due to structural flaws. The EFSF is now to be replaced by the "permanent" European Stability Mechanism ("ESM") which will have lending capacity of euro 500 billion, the originally proposed level.

The euro 500 billion ESM facility too has deep structural flaws. It relies on a similar mechanism to the original EFSF to achieve its AAA rating – a system of separate guarantees and capital. The euro 500 billion fund is theoretically backed by euro 80 billion in cash and euro 620 billion in guarantees from euro-zone members.

The euro 80 billion will only be provided over 5 years starting in 2013. In part, this was a concession to member countries, including Germany, who were reluctant politically to provide the cash except on deferred terms. There is provision for speeding up payments into the funds if required, for example, by the need for additional bailouts. The facility also provides for member countries to provide cash to support the ESM, where its credit rating falls below a specified threshold to reduce the performance risk.

As with the EFSF, the reliance on euro-zone members guaranteeing each other is problematic. Some of the guarantors are themselves are vulnerable with the real and contingent liabilities. For example, every euro 100 billion provided by the ESM increases Italy’s potential liabilities by euro 18 billion, equivalent to 1% of the country’s GDP, and Germany’s potential liability by euro 27 billion, also equivalent to 1% of GDP.

Drawings on the facility may result in a spiral of credit downgrades and cash calls. For weaker guarantors, their financial position may be undermined, potentially encouraging them to withdraw from the ESM itself. For stronger members, it places increased pressure on their support and weakens their credit rating and finances.

The position is made worse by the fact that non-common currency EU members may not be part of the new structure. The UK has indicated that it will not be part of the ESM, depriving the euro-zone members of a significant source of funding and support (around 14% of the EFSF).

The ESM perpetuates existing and introduces new problems. Access to the ESM funding requires unanimous agreement amongst the euro-zone members. The ESM can provide loans only where the country agrees to accept EU/ IMF prescriptions for reformation of public finances and the economy. It will lend to the troubled country or purchase its bonds in the primary market, but not in the secondary market.

Unlike the EFSF arrangement, ESM funding would be senior to existing government debt (a standard feature of IMF rescues and bankruptcy financing, which was surprising excluded in the initial bailout condition). The ESM stipulates that restructuring is a requirement in the "unexpected" instance the government in question is determined to be "insolvent." In addition, from 2013, all future government bonds issued by euro-zone nations will need to include collective action clauses (CACs), designed to make restructuring mandatory under certain conditions.

If the current financing pressures on the troubled economies continue, then the existing support mechanisms may be inadequate. The countries, which have already sought bailouts, may need to seek additional support if commercial financing sources remain unavailable to them. Maturing debt and projected budget deficits for Greece, Ireland and Portugal will require around euro 300 billion in new funding between 2011 and 2013. If Spain needs to resort to the EU Funding mechanism, then the ability to provide additional would be severely strained.

In reality, an EU support mechanism of something in the order of euro 1.5-2.0 trillion would be needed to ensure a credible ability to bailout the embattled economies. Some European finance ministers have already called for an increase in the ESM to euro 1.5 trillion. If Italy was to need a bailout then the amount would be even larger - say euro 3-2.5 trillion. The political support for and economic viability of a facility of this size is unlikely.

At the same time, the terms of the ESM, especially the subordination of existing lenders to bailout funding and the mandatory CACs will increasingly force lenders and investors to avoid funding vulnerable countries. In effect, this will ensure that the peripheral economies becoming increasingly dependent on EU support, triggering the negative spiral described.

Skin in the Game
The EU bailouts have always primarily focused on protecting European banks from the effects of a default by borrowers such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

In total, banks in Germany, France and the UK have exposures of over euro 500 billion to these three countries. If exposure to Spain and Italy is included, the global banking system’s total exposure increases to around euro 2 trillion. The position is complicated by complex cross-lending arrangements. For example, banks in Spain, which may require support, have a euro 70 billion exposure to Portugal and a euro 13 billion exposure to Ireland.

Central to the European debt problems is the credit boom that took place following the introduction of the euro. Prior to monetary union in 1999, interest rates charged on loans to individual countries better reflected risk of loss - from currency movements and ability to repay debt. The introduction of the euro eliminated currency risk. Surprisingly, credit spreads fell sharply, reflecting a lack of differentiation between the credit quality of individual nations.

The mis-pricing of risk was driven by a belief that the entire euro zone was AAA rated because of the "implicit" support of Germany. An additional factor was the fact under Basel 1 and to a lesser extent under Basel 2 banking regulations, lending to sovereign nations attracted favorable capital treatment. The combination of these factors drove lending to the peripheral countries and their banks fuelling large credit booms which are now unwinding.

Much of this debt – in the form of sovereign debt, lending to banks and also structured securities based on mortgage and corporate loans – is held by smaller banks in France and Germany. If Greece, Ireland, Portugal and (ultimately) Spain have to restructure the debt, then these banks will suffer significant losses. It is unclear whether banks, especially in Germany and France, have sufficient capital and reserves, to bear these losses. The IMF’s bi-annual Financial Stability Report has consistently argued that the euro-zone banks have not been recognized losses adequately. The inadequate 2010 stress tests conducted by European central banks and the ECB did not countenance the prospect of a sovereign default in determining bank solvency. There are suggestions that the underlying position of some European banks, especially German Landesbanks, is highly problematic.

In June 2011, Moody’s changed its outlook on 13 mid-sized and smaller Italian banks to negative and warned it could downgrade the long-term debt ratings of 16 others. This followed its announcement that it had put Italy’s sovereign debt on review for possible downgrade. Italian banks were less affected by the financial crisis due to conservative lending culture and high levels of domestic retail deposits. Despite these strengths, concerns about possible contagion from the peripheral countries and the problems of Italy itself in bailing out these countries are now increasingly problematic.

Default or restructuring of European debt, in all probability, will require State involvement in recapitalizing these institutions. In essence, attention will switch from bailouts of sovereign nations to bailing out affected national banks.

ECB Hurt Money
Default or restructuring would also affect the ECB, which holds around euro 50 billion of Greek debt alone. The ECB’s total exposure to Greece, including lending to Greek banks and loans against Greek government bonds, is much higher – euro 130-140 billion.

If Greece defaults, then the ECB could suffer losses as high as euro 65-70 billion (say 50% of the amount advanced). The losses would almost certainly require recapitalization of the ECB itself by euro-zone members. As of 1 January 2011, the ECB had paid up capital of euro 5.2 billion (due to be increased progressively to euro 10.8 billion). The ECB is owned by the 17 euro-zone central banks with the combined capital of around Euro 80 billion.

The ECB’s position on whether peripheral countries like Greece should be allowed to default increasingly appears to be complicated by its own vulnerable financial position. When Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, an Italian board member, stated that a Greek debt restructuring would be "suicide" he may have been referring to the ECB. Statements about Anglo-Saxon "vested interests" seeking the restructuring of Greek debt are now matched by the ECB’s "self interest" in avoiding the same.

The effect on wider money markets of defaults is unpredictable. Depending on the quantum of losses and the recapitalization requirements, the event could create concerns about affected euro-zone banks, providing a channel for contagion in financial market. This could destabilize markets, transmitting the shock through high cost and reduced availability of financing, in a manner similar to what happened after the bankruptcy filing by Lehman Brothers in 2008.

Grand Confusions
The deeply flawed European strategy entailed providing financing to meet maturing debt and budget deficits at a time when markets were not open to the borrower or, at least, at reasonable rates. The EU/ ECB/ IMF funding would reduce borrowing costs to alleviate the pressure on public finances. The "temporary" measures would provide the country with the opportunity to reform its public finances and economy to make its debt burden more manageable. In time, the measures would allow the borrower to regain the confidence of commercial lenders and regain access to markets. As a corollary, banks would be able to build up reserves and capital against the possibility of some modest write-off as a result of some "minor" restructuring of debt, in the unlikely event that this was required.

Unfortunately, the premise that it was a "liquidity" rather than a "solvency" problem was incorrect. Breaking ranks, with other European central banks, Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, stated uncategorically that in his view it was an issue of solvency.

In reality, markets understood that the EU bailouts were a "get-out-of-jail" pass for poor lending decisions. There was no way that any of these nations would ever be able to service or repay current and projected levels of borrowing. The EU facility provided a means for the distressed nations to repay maturing debt and finance their deficits. In effect, the EU and official bodies have replaced commercial lenders as debt providers.

The bailout plan did not lower the nation’s interest costs or their access to markets. Interest rates on borrowing for Greece and Ireland are higher now than at the time of their bailouts. Despite the likelihood of EU support, Portugal’s cost of funds is unsustainably high. Spain and other countries, such Italy and Belgium, seen as vulnerable by investors have seen their borrowing costs rise inexorably.
The bailouts have made its less not more likely that these countries will regain access to markets in the near future. As existing debts mature, the funding provided official sources, the EU, ECB and IMF, is increasing. As these countries need additional financing, the absence of private financing will increase this proportion even further, leaving them to bear the bulk of losses in any restructuring.

The lack of confidence reflects the failure of the rehabilitation plans and the continued unsustainability of the debt levels of these countries. The lack of economic growth and deteriorating public finances is not likely to reverse soon. Even in the most optimistic scenarios, gross public debt in the most troubled economies will continue to increase as continued budget deficits will require financing. Greece’s debt to GDP is likely to stabilize at around 160-180% around 2014/ 2015. Ireland, Portugal and Spain’s debt to GDP will reach 125-140%, 100-115% and 85-100% over the same period. Italy and Belgium already have debt to GDP ratios above 100%, but their budget deficits are lower and they are less dependent of foreign investors. Italy, burdened with very high levels of debt and low growth, has recently been placed on "negative" credit watch by rating agencies.

Even at subsidized interest rates, the debt burden for Greece, Ireland and Portugal looks unsustainable, rendering the countries insolvent. Spain’s position is better, but problems in the country’s banking sector as the property boom unwinds would strain its finances significantly. If Italy's cost of financing continues to rise then its debt servicing burden too may prove unsustainable. Slower than forecast global growth would place even greater pressure on all these countries.
These concerns about solvency will drive the lack of access to private financing, especially post 2013 because of the subordination provision and the mandatory inclusion of CACs. The failure of the grand compact will increase pressure to ultimately restructure debt in some form at some stage.

Backsliding
In the near term, the EU and euro-zone members seem likely to persist with the failed strategy. Portugal’s bailout package will be financed by the EU, EFSF and IMF. Further funding needs will be accommodated as they emerge from the existing facilities as much as possible, until these are exhausted. The ECB will continue to support the bailout plans. German insistence on commercial lenders sharing some of the burden has wavered. Instead fuzzy ideas of a "voluntary" commitment of existing lenders to re-finance existing, maturing debt will gain traction.

Over time, the palpable failure of the bailout strategy–extend and pretend–will progressively be revealed. Pressure will emerge to improve the term of the bailout package.

Already, Greece has received reductions in interest rates on bailout funding and some extension in the terms of the financing. The need to provide additional funding to Greece of around euro 120 billion is already under discussion. In all probability, some deal will be done to provide the funds, against Greek promises that cannot and will not be met. There will be more and more of the same, in a desperate effort to avoid default or restructuring.

In the end, default or restructuring will become inevitable. Initially, minor changes, such as lowering coupons and extending maturities, perhaps as part of debt swaps, will be sought to manage the problem. Ultimately, a major restructuring, involving a significant write off of outstanding debt is likely. This is the case for Greece and perhaps the other peripheral countries.

Such defaults would be the first by a developed country since 1948. As most of the debt is issued under local law, a swift restructuring is feasible by the agreement of a simple majority or super majority (say 2/3rds of lenders). Based on history, a loss of around 30-70% of the face value of obligations is expected. The longer the time taken over the process, the greater the likely losses to holders of the obligations. The reason being that unless the debt burden is reduced early, continuing high servicing costs and deficits will continue to increase the level of write off necessitated to restore solvency.

A Matter of Political Classes
European decision making increasingly echoes Shakepeare’s Richard II’s lament: "I wasted time, and now doth time waste me." The EU and major euro-zone members, notably Germany and France, lack the political courage or will to tackle the problem. The absence of an "easy" and "painless" solution means that career politicians and euro-crats see no benefit in advocating the complex and messy process of default and restructuring.

European leaders dissemble that the debt crisis was the result of traders and financial markets. Anders Borg, Sweden’s finance minister spoke of "wolf-pack markets". José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Spain’s Prime Minister, blamed "cynical hedge funds", "cocky credit-ratings agencies" and "neoconservative capitalism." Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou accused traders of visiting "psychological terror" on his country. Michel Barnier, the European commissioner for the single market, accused financial institutions of "making money on the back of the unhappiness of the people." Mr. Zapatero also found fault with a duplicitous Anglo-Saxon press. In short, it seems anybody but the Europeans are to blame. Cognitive dissonance looms large.

Increasingly, the trajectory of the crisis is driven by political considerations. The denouement to the European debt crisis, probably some way off, will come via by the "street" or the ballot box.

In the afflicted nations, public protests and disturbances are increasing as the populace rejects greater austerity. Populist politicians, willing to reject the need for further "sacrifice" and repudiate the country’s debt, hover in the wings. The argument that the country will be an international "financial pariah" doesn’t carry much weight when you are already one with no one likely to lend you money any time soon. It also has less weight when you don’t have a job and the country is on the brink of social breakdown.

For the countries that must provide the bulk of the bailout money, there is angst that the increased level of financing required by the problem borrowers has turned the EU into a "transfer union." Karl Otto Pöhl, the former head of the Bundesbank, stated that: "The foundation of the euro has fundamentally changed as a result of the decision by euro-zone governments to transform themselves into a transfer union. That is a violation of every rule. In the treaties governing the functioning of the European Union, it explicitly states that no country is liable for the debts of any other. But what we are doing right now, is exactly that. Added to this is the fact that, against all its vows, and against an explicit ban within its own constitution, the European Central Bank (ECB) has become involved in financing states."

The lack of decisive and timely action has allowed smaller political parties to gain momentum. Parties like Finland’s True Finns and France’s Far Right, rejuvenated under the leadership of Marine le Pen, have gained electorally on a policy platform of a mix of rejecting bailouts, nationalism, anti-immigration and other sundry forms of xenophobia.
Discontented and angry voters in Germany and other saving nations at some stage may also decide to call time on the fruitless and self-defeating support for the overly indebted euro-zone members.

Having falsely linked the problem of over indebted states with the canards of the continuation of the euro and the survival of the euro-zone itself, Europe is increasingly drifting towards an inevitable, disastrous and destabilizing debt crisis. Rather than amputating a gangrenous limb, European leaders risk poisoning the entire body fatally – weakening the financial positions of the stronger euro-zone members and their economies, which are paying for the bailout and will suffer the losses when the inevitable defaults come.

The Complex “Epistemology of Logic” & The Simple “Intentionality of Fucus…”

2011-08-01T14:26:00.000-07:00

(This may offer some help Tim. I wrote it for a general audience of philosophers…)

How does one even begin to describe the mechanics of self-logic__that’s a logic, looking at itself, to understand itself…? Is it even possible, without running straight into the many epistemological, teleological and ontological unsolved historical problems, of others’__thus far attempts__at trying to explain this concept, or its mechanics…? I know of no sound eclectic, polymathic philosopher or logician who did not try their best to clearly explain the epistemology of logic and rationality involved, but I still must come up short, of giving them full credit for their efforts__as I still see far too much left un-explained. Why has it been so difficult, to delve deep enough into the logic-psyche of perception, to truly understand it…? Does not intelligence equate to a__or the__knowledge of logic and psyche, within perception__or is this truly an incommensurability concept of the complex mechanics of logic and psychology__at the very core of our ‘heacceitic/supervenient/one-many’ understanding, of the total functioning mechanics…? Would an esthetics of intelligence better serve our foundations of understanding of this most complex a concept__and where does our simple intentionality of focus, fit in…? These are just a few of the questions I’m starting out with, to see if just possibly, I can achieve any better understanding, than all the great logicians’, estheticians’ and philosophers’ attempts__before me. Let’s see how I do…

The initial philosophical argument mainly goes back to pre-suppositional background stances, and primarily as to whether we put more faith and credit in meta-physics, psychology or logic__at least in my opinion. This would really be our primary intentional focus of mind and thought, and there are hundreds of historical examples to choose from here, or to create our own view, anew. These ideas really came fully to the front burner, back toward the end of the 19th century, with the positions taken by Frege, Brentano and Peirce__then Husserl, Wittgenstein and others, in the early 20th century. My position about their positions is; they all missed the mark of hitting the target directly, and the entire world has been awash in confusion and conflation of and about these necessary philosophical ideas’ solutions__unnecessarily so__ever since…

Yes, it does make it rather difficult to explain one’s pre-suppositional, or preferred intentional stance by way of any one of the three offered focus points__metaphysics, psychology or logic__but, no matter which one’s pre-suppositional or preferred intentional stance is, you’ll end facing the same exact dilemma of explanation__which usually ends in a Socratic ‘aporia’__so what’s to be done to clear this matter up__a bit…? Let’s deliberately start out in logic, to show the difficulty of understanding just how logic ‘Herself’ can see and explain its own mechanics, to itself. If logic looks at straight logic, all the way back into the core of the self-processing mind__what does it find…? All one needs do is ask; “How does logic process itself…?”__to immediately see how difficult this problem is. So, instead of fumbling around here with logic, let’s take the logic concept to its core__or shell, however you want it__which imo, would be no more than natural perception, in its most primary state__pure neutral innocent perception, which contains logic and her twin, rationality__as our dialectic ‘self-questioning-answering-twins’, except one is usually primary and the other secondary, but semiotics throughout history has shown them to be able to exchange positions, i.e., inter-exchange as the needs arise as to ascriptions of other essence agents’ needs to each other, to such reason, rationalities and or logics, etc, dynamics and mechanics. The reason perception is being described as a neutral innocent agency, is the simple fact one’s brain/mind absolutely requires at least one open agent to act as fully neutral__thus acting as a bridge to transfer all agent and agency signals__and since perception is known to be thoroughly neutral to outside nature entering the gates of perception, unaided by any other of our agents or agency__it’s fully known to be neutral__even if it may have other extended capacities, that may be mentioned later…

It now seems, we may have a pure enough agent/agency to start with, to house the other bio-neuro-agents necessary, to set up the dynamics of transducible inter-acting thought mechanics__if just a bit of imagination is used to build a model of the brain/mind. It seems philosophers and such, have simply not investigated deep enough inside neutral perception’s potential to be the house of all the brain’s necessary thought mechanics, where a multitude of ‘bio-neuro-agents’ are set up by our pre-natural states of physiological mechanics, to function as a simple reflective mirrors' system, memory storing and understanding/seeing device__we simply peer into with perception’s reason and logic__or even psychology and metaphysics, if desired to do so__It’s simply all milti-levels of seeing. But, what makes the giant differences between our metaphysical ground states of focus, vs our psychological and logical ground states of focus…?

Let’s just watch what really happens when we take a ground focus state of logic to look at a bunch of trees, on the side of a hill, overlooking a lake__What do we see if we simply casually look, without clearly focusing in on any one object…? We simply process the information as a general universal vision, which if you really think about it__is not logic at all__even though you may be a logician, as I am. In this scenario, my or your mind has really turned from processing the images logically, to processing them psychologically__yet, we’ll almost always insist it’s processing on our logical focus, as being the truest focus, as that’s our preferred, pre-self-programmed, pre-suppositional primary focus and stance. The same will be true if I reverse the order to that of the psychological pre-suppositional processing__yet ask the psychological focus to intentionally concentrate on a particular object__say a frog sitting on a rock__at the water’s edge. The psychological mind will turn logical on the passage of its preferred psychological pre-suppositional stance, to that of the logical focus, without you or me even recognizing it, and still, we’ll usually swear we are making a psychological observation, even though in fact__the nature of the beast of the mind has self-changed its very mechanics, under our very noses, without any of us even noticing__unless you happen to be one who is already fully aware of nature’s given mechanics, multi-variably self-operating within our brains and minds…

Now, watch what happens with the metaphysical__as it turns out to be the most universal focus stance to operate with, of all three__whether the logical or psychological minds have ever considered it or not__It has the natural power of ‘multi-variably-focusing’. The metaphysical has the advantage of resting neutrally in Nature’s own fundamental stance, if I can even word it like this, without offending some of the metaphysicians, logicians and psychologists. When pre-suppositionally positioning one’s focus knowingly and preferedly in the metaphysical stance__one has the easy choice of using either of the other two necessary positions of a general and universal psychological focus, or a particular and specific logical focus, yet still comfortably being able to return to its ground base of ‘multi-varible-metaphysics’__or the ground state of haecceity and supervenience__Nature’s own natural fundamental neutral processing state. So__Iff we wake up, we really do have a choice here__and it’s not one of any religious sort, but a simple choice of recognizing Ockham’s Razor’s ‘indiscernibility principle’ of the easiest possible ‘one/many’ processing path. We can foolishly fight the world of Nature’s reality, by insisting on being pre-suppositionally logical or psychological__or truly realize we can take the neutral stance and focus, on our ground point state of natural ‘one/many’ metaphysics__and thus allow our minds to ‘freely-flow’ from their natural ground states of their ‘multi-variable-focusing’ nature__Where we don’t have to control the states of our focus__where intentionality comes naturally, from our childhood memory states__before we foolishly chose either of the overly and unnecessarily hard paths of logic or psychology__as our overly-primary preferred mechanics of viewing this very natural and ‘uncomplicated’ world…

Metaphysics, over the centuries, may have got a bad rap and rep__but, it’s really a lot easier to accept what needs to be in the core of our understanding__the ‘one/many’ central concept__of our mind’s processing, than to unnecessarily fight the necessarily happening mechanics, of Nature’s natural systems__freely given to us, as a ‘best-fitting inference system mechanics’__Possible… I also wouldn’t want you to think this is real easy to understand, either__as it is not. I still think it takes the thorough understanding of sem(e)iotics’ very complex mechanics, of dynamic agent and agency interactions__along with a good dose of symbolic and graph logic__to fully understand the above, and according to one’s education and thought’s evolutionary state, what one may simply understand from the above’s more simple explanation…

The more complex I make this, the less it’ll be understood__so I’ll stop here… I’d simply suggest a good study of the web’s many pdf’s on epistemology and sem(e)iology, especially those by Charles Sanders Peirce and Bernard Bolzano, and any of the professionally done secondary literature of/on both__as it’s easier to understand, and quite thorough, if done by those authors who respect these great mens’ works…

“We should all know the full intentionality of our focus…” me

Addendum to the above:
I don’t quite know why it is so hard to state the above facts deep enough to achieve clarity, but I do know that every time I’ve tried to do just that__it’s been the most difficult job I’ve ever attempted, and I felt I haven’t accomplished the job I set out to do any better this time__so here’s an attempt to extend it to more meaning and clarity__if possible. First off, ‘Epistemology’, as I’m using it is to be known as ‘The science of the limits of logical knowledge, and its mechanics of mental processings’, and I’d like to recognize the fact I forgot to mention above that I was addressing normal logic/thought, of proto-logic/first logic, as that logic existing before we attempt any organization of normal logic into any type of formal logic. Also, the other proto-logic of ‘Modal Logic’ should be recognized as existing in this same area of thinking about this most fundamental level of logic. One never realizes how difficult this is, and the massive job Aristotle certainly had, to create the first formal logic ever produced. Yes, there existed a ‘formal modal logic’ before Aristotle, and that had been debated and argued extensively long before Aristotle, as to its three states of ‘possibility, impossibility and necessity’__and Aristotle included and extended the ideas of this also, but the deeper area of normal thinking to a fully formalized thinking of symbolic and syllogistic logic, was only first completed by Aristotle__the truest father of fully formal logic. I am simply trying to retrace this trail/train of thought through the ancient to modern paths, of how it must be understood__to function as the ‘formal logic’ it does(yet understood in more layman terms and ideas), or possibly extend it into a new ‘Best-Fitting hypothetical inference logic mechanics and proof system’__or really, a better and more complete explanation of ‘Abduction’__‘The true science and logic of hypothesis…’

Just to let you know further how difficult chasing out logical thought, within the mind, truly is__I started this quest intently, clear back in the summer of 1972__and have been working on the best way of wording it ever since. It seems I can word it in my mind, as clear as a bell, but when it comes to writing clearly about it, the mind has a mind of its own, and takes me off course, even before I even start. It seems the reason is the mind just needs to convert logical thinking to psychological and metaphysical thinking, back and forth in such fast succession__that it’s near impossible for my thinking to pin it down to the natural set path it’s taking, inside me lil’ ol’ punkin. I know I can use the formal symbolic logic and semiotics to explain it better, but my goal is to explain it with simple and natural language, any 5th grade student can understand__and therein lies the problem. Each time I try to nail down a simple thought and or logic path, it changes to another definition of mechanics, right before my eyes. It’s like when I attempt to follow the universal group focus or vision of anything I may choose, to its specific particular focus of vision and description__still trying to maintain the thought path__it blurs into a non-descriptive indiscernible non-image, before I can even latch onto the mechanical processes taking place, deep within my mind. Now, I know this is the deep epistemological mechanics taking place at this level__but, I still question the fact of why I can’t keep track of what I know to be the essence agents, agency and mechanics the sem(e)iotic mechanics must choose from, to complete the concept to concept process__through all its disjuncts and conjuncts. And this means I’m fully aware of the eclectic mechanics taking place between the will having to choose its many different judgment and decision mechanics levels, as per say__empiricism, rationality, memory states of both subjective and objective storage event states, present working memory and direct perception states of subjective and objective events and objects, ascripted emotional judgments, formal rational judgments, all the many thousands of inference images, experiences, experiments and ideas from the outside and inside worlds of reality and natural memory, teleological ideas, ontological ideas, mereological ideas, disjunctions and conjunctions of all these many possible states of normal forms into formal forms, etc., on and on__But, my question has always been; “Why can’t I follow this total path mechanics, if I know it all exists…?”

It seems the mechanical process is just so fast at switching between the most fundamental states of logic, psychology and metaphysics(self-chosen as representative mental states) into a more uniform state of isomorphic mechanics of states, the mind is, or at least seems to be, simply incapable of following its own state changing mechanics__thoroughly enough__to capture its full integral path from first visions and thoughts, into final states of either group thoughts, if starting from the particular and passing to the Universal, or to particular specific final logic states, if starting from the group Universal thoughts, and processing to the specific logical states. What I’m trying to see into is; “Is it possible that nature’s natural inference state, may be interfering with all the state paths I am following, and entering her own state changing path mechanics, I can not normally see…?” We certainly know our eyes and perception take in the external world around us, totally passively, if we but do not interfere, by our intentionality of focus__so this same process, must by necessity, be happening all the time, we are also at the same time__internally processing our own private thoughts__therefore; ‘Nature, all by herself, must by necessity of inference flow mechanics, be changing the disjuncts and conjuncts of concepts integral paths, within the mind, as I’m looking at it…’ There is no reason we’d be able to see this ‘Natural Inference Mechanics’, because we don’t normally see it happening__that is as to its exact integral path mechanics, unless we re-represent it within our reflective perceptual working memory states, where our will can manipulate it__But, that initial ‘Natural Inference Mechanics’, would be taking place before our ‘Will and Judgments’ even became involved__and herein__"I’ve just this second realized”__is the lil’ ol’ ‘trickster demon’ that’s actually fooling our mind mechanics, at its most primary path state intersection__though it’s not really a ‘trickster demon’__but merely nature's natural mental biological-neuro-states’ necessary mechanics’ paths__to enable the mind to be fed any information__in the first place__to even have begun to work on, as all first inferred information must have a free-path circuit, to simply store such necessary primary information in the brain’s memory, without being self-judgment or decision acted upon, or we’d all get far too easily lost in any of our simplest motive actions in the real world__Nature requires a ‘free-path mechanics’, just as much as we require, at the least, a ‘partially free will’. The secret seems to be no more than ‘Inference Path Necessity of Nature’s Natural Mechanics…’ Simply put; “We can’t stop the natural path integral mechanics of Nature, influencing our personal will, judgment, decision and action mechanics__completely__so, we actually process all information in conjunction with Nature…” Thus, such a co-processing mechanics of images and thoughts, would absolutely necessitate a co-processing determined 'free-path' and indetermined ‘partially’ 'free-will…'

Now, maybe later, I can fully retrace all my thoughts from fundamental nature’s own inference mechanics, to my own natural to formal logical mechanics…

I’ll get back to this later in another post, as this discovery has over-flooded my mind, at this point__I need some thought space…

How Does The ‘Tabula Rasa’ See & Know Itself…?

2011-07-15T12:29:00.000-07:00

What am I if I wipe the slate of my mind totally clean of content__not it’s mechanics and what it’s really bio-neurally made of(don’t wish to make Descartes’ mistake), but to a state of purely zero information content…?(except of course, memory) Let’s take a hypothetical look at such a pure state possibility… I think it can easily stand in for the theorizing we often attempt, at removing historical information from our minds, to speculatively see the much more wild, native and ancient states of man and community__yet imo, this method of the ‘tabula rasa model/blank slate model’ offers the same means, while staying in the state changes of ones present life__which may just offer a far more direct method… It may even offer a clearer and truer state of speculation and possible hypothesis building, of mental actions and evolution__hopefully allowing a new slant on an old story…

If a pure fundamental state of mind exists, then what does initial or 1st state thought consist of, and where is its proto-source/s…? I think this is the question we must answer, to answer to history’s quest both in philosophy and psychology, the two most investigated areas of this equation. The late 19th century saw the greatest flury of activity by not only the newly forming field of professional psychologists, but the long standing logicians, as well. The battlefields were being drawn all across the European, as well as the American continents. Of course many will easily recognize this as the old battles of and between rational thought and empirical thought, more well known as the study of epistemology, and often extended to include some aspects of teleology, ontology and mereology, and for such facts, this expose will bear fruit from all four, as I intend to show an eclectic ‘a priori’ and ‘a posteriori’ logic, protecting its slightly weaker sibling__psychology, and this same psychology protecting its stronger sibling__logic, from becoming too full of itself…

Now, some may say that’s a bold statement__but, it’s already been articulated over a 50 year period, in the later 19th century, and the first part of the 20th century, by and within the formal and private writings, and professional letters of Charles Sanders Peirce__to many of the world’s most famous then living personages, of his era… I am simply stating that Peirce actually discovered the entire inference mechanics path of our total thought processes, back then__but, I’m not certain if he actually realized it or not, though it is clearly stated when anyone tasks themselves to take in all his and others’ ideas and papers, over the period of his life, especially when viewed from today’s much extended secondary investigations__with our much extended scientific capacities and abilities into classical, quantum and relative mechanics__not even counting today’s much extended logics and maths, but in all fairness, CM, QM and RM certainly depend on these new extensions of and within the modern logics and maths, of these complex physical systems…

Anyway, not to go any deeper than necessary, for our fundamental inference path mechanics__much of the modern logical and mathematical complexity can be ignored__as I intend to describe our inquiry trail much easier, with our simple natural logic, or the ‘logica utens’, as Peirce wrote about it. Yes, the ‘logica utens’ does contain our ‘a priori’ mathematical abilities, and this can be reduced to our simple ratio-logic, for its most fundamental path mechanics' necessities, to be put forward in this paper. Now, don’t all you psychology leaning readers run off at this stage, as no inference enters the brain/mind__without 1st passing directly through our psychological/empirical senses, by way of our physical senses of sight to intuition/perception/intuition, ‘a priori/a posteriori’ rational intellect, subjective/objective judgment, will and finally leaving at the gates of mental or physical action__either by being stored in memory for later retrieval, or said thought activating our muscles into new physical actions, of either play or work. My job will be to discern how and where these 1st perceptions and proto-thoughts are determined, to become psychological or logical judgments__and exactly how and from where all initial information enters the brain/mind states of such psychological and logical processes__but, my job is made much easier by having discovered all of these inference paths in Peirce’s already written massive correspondence and writings…

Of course, what the above paragraph is addressing are the hardest problems in philosophy__not yet solved, whether that be ‘total inference mechanics’_‘foundations of psychology, logic or both’_‘free will’_‘epistemology, teleology, psychology or all three, possibly plus ontology and mereology’_and ‘just how much is empiricism directly involved in rationality and why?’ These questions will only be settled by a new ‘meta-semiotic methodology’ of this science being directly applied to these difficult philosophical questions, debates and ever so serious arguments__no matter where and what media these dialogues, dialectics and conversations take place, and in. We just seem to love to argue over the seeming incommensurabilities of these, otherwise simple superveniences__But, where do the boundaries lie, and how can we understand these, seemingly so, complex aporias__anew…? Is it possible to develop an open eclective normativity of such views, expressed through a simpler ground of general common sense…?

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve re-read Peirce’s scientific methodological ideas, after reading others’ ideas, just to get my head screwed back on right__I’d be a millionaire by now. Just finished reading Joseph Esposito’s, Christopher Hookway’s, Irving Anellis’ and Mathias Girel’s excellent papers on these battles I speak of above, back in those days and up to today__and what a joy it’s been after reading hundreds of other really bad scholars in between, while leaning on a few good Peirceans just for life-preservers__such as Susan Haack, T.L. Short and Karl-Otto Apel__but, most were of the Frege' school which just about completely lacks a necessary modal logic and any reasonable and sensible distinctions between mathematics and logic__per say__which happens to be, imo, absolutely necessary for such philosophy to make any true and sound sense, so is there any unknown reason__that analytic philosophy__is off on such a silly linguistic witch-hunt…? They badly need re-introduction to simple language, images and analogies, etc__I do so humbly fear… And yes, I’m just giving smug personal opinions here, but Frege did give a great contribution to philosophy and logic, by distinguishing the necessity of separating psychological content from logical content, to do proper formal logic__Then__but, that is no longer feasible or necessary, in our over-conflated and confused semantic-web-world. We’ve long ago graduated from the fear of psychology destroying our logic__iff we’ve understood Peirce entirely, so I’ll try to keep my prejudices in check__but, really my problem is about one logic school of thought against another logic school of thought__Peirce vs. Frege__The older vs. the younger__and Peirce, by far imo, had the wiser supervisors of his education__plus the added advantage of being a real and true scientist__which gave him the advantage of a thoroughly real-world grounded logic…

Let me add in here, a few comments I wrote a few years back, that just may add a little clarity to what I’ve written above:

How Does A Brain See Itself, Without A Mind...?

Btw, excellent note you wrote to me... The title may seem strange, but seriously ask yourself; 'Do we need a mind, if we have a brain...?' If everything in the brain exists within the neural biological perception network, and I do mean everything, every essence agent tool we use, and every aspect of possible essence__Then what's mind but an extra, completely unnecessary word, to confuse us...? Can brain see mind...? No...! How does brain know mind exists...? It doesn't...! Is mind necessary for anything, beyond the capacities of our brains...? No__Not that I can find...! Is mind just pure imagination...? Is mind as a conceptual system necessary...? Is mind what we refer to as Intellect...? Is mind the conceptual system, absolutely separate from brain...? Imo, brain sees itself, without a mind, through perception...! Does perception see concepts...? Yes...! Does perception see feelings...? Yes...! Does perception see intellect...? Yes...! If all functions are performed by brain, perception and all their physical essence agents and tools, then what's mind do...? Nothing I can find, as it's not necessary__so far, to any of my investigations...! So maybe, iff we stop confusing and conflating brain and mind, brain with mind, mind with brain, etc., on and on__Just maybe, we could make some real sense of physical and mental intelligences...! Intelligence is nothing but the physical processes of the meat-ball sitting on our shoulders, processing meat, rocks and em-waves, etc...! Intelligence finds no minds or consciousnesses to process...! Intelligence finds only the physical world__externally and internally__all else is imaginal space exaggerations...! What is imaginal space...? Perception's ability to see beyond the finite, into oblivion(any physical mirror book system can do this)__Necessary for theory to see the possible ideal, and non-ideal, futures, for our very rational survival as a species...! What is rationality...? Perceptions fundamental a priori arithmetic ability to process lesser and greater magnitudes and multitudes, and their mathematical cousins__Best orders...!

Do we have mental intelligences...? Do we have physical intelligences...? Which is true...? Are they both true, or is just one true...? Is it necessary to have a mental fluidic continuum we can not physically define or see...? How could such a non-physical continuum field exist...? It couldn't...! It can't...! It doesn't...! There's only one real physical continuum, filled with real physical em-wave-matter, non-viscous, fluidic particles...! Oh, we can distinguish between the internal and external continuums, but they're really made of the exact same materials__em-rads, etc...! The only essence agent tool that makes them distinguishable is the brain's neural perception network...! So, what we mistake for the mental, is actually the brain's perception, mirroring the brain's physical visions, from one perception/essence agent tool to another, i.e., from external vision, to direct perception(internal vision), to memory storage, to judgments, to ascripted emotions, and back to perception, and finally to will and actions, etc...! The brain, perception and all her essence agents do it all__No mind required...! So what's the big deal about mind...? It's just an extra word we've tagged onto the brain's neural perceptual system__nothing more...!

The physical brain is processing nothing but physical systems__externally viewed, and internally viewed__by perception and brain...! What's the puzzle...? Relativity...? No...! That's just a minor, less than .5%, correction to standard classical physics...! The puzzle is arguing about mind and brain...! Throw out the useless words mind, and consciousness, and you can begin to understand the very simple brain of intuitions and logic...!

The missing link is not understanding word conflations and confusions...! Mind is simply perception...!

The Fallible Human Mind/Ego/Soul of Logic...

Again, you offer no definition of this, otherwise, mythical logic. You know, it seems everyone wants to assume their own perfection and completeness of understanding of ideas, when in fact all ideas and minds are truly incomplete___being itself___is incomplete___yet most speak from an ego as if it possessed complete omega knowledge and wisdom___I think this point quite important. Let's just say that possibly, the mind at omega point may be able to achieve such complete intelligence, how, and I stress how, would one develop the dialogue and language necessary to reach the world's diversity of minds? Is it even possible? I think the key would be in accepting, with humility, the absolute incompleteness of one's own being's knowledge, and the definitions of what is considered knowledge and or wisdom, to different groups. Now, we know from this site, that metaphysics and science are on opposing sides, quite often, not even counting the vast differences of spiritists, emotionalists and consciousnessists. Is there a solution to these mind/ego/soul differences...?

Now, I know there is a solution to these differences, but I don't know a way of getting the truths across to varying global points of views. All I can do is state my views, from the science side of philosophy and physics. Let me just point out that when anyone uses logic, it has different rules of use for all the opposing world points of view. It was Husserl who first recognized the different rules between scientific and psychological logics___he showed where they had opposite sets of rules. Others have shown also that music and comedy opperate on totally opposite logic functions than science, and of course, we well know the differences between spiritists and scientists, etc... Now, what exactly are these differences...? The scientist will say logic must function according to the established rules and laws of the historical use of philosophic and physical logic, as established by Aristotle on, i.e., A is A, A is B, and B is not not B, and the excluded middle, etc.. Since Aristotle, we have further increased the branches of logic to some 137 categories and 9 classes, functioning on varrying agreements and dis-agreements with the founding rules. On the other side of the fence are the psycholigists, metaphysicists, spiritists, emotionalists and consciousnessists, etc. who insist on a further undefined set of private language logics, as first described by Wittgenstien___and he also stated, it doesn't exist. Now, we really have quite a mix of mush to make sense of___where do we start...?

Let me again just state science's position. In order for logic to function toward facts and factually provable truths, only real object ideas can be inferred into the otherwise fallible human logic, due to the fact that if opinion is allowed to be inferred into logic, all that is possible for logic to return is opinion. This does not mean the scientist can not use theory to find fact. It only means that the final logic must only have real objects' ideas inferred into logic to return absolute facts, and nor is it possible for any subjective realities to be inferred into logic, with an outcome of absolute facts___subjective inferrences will always return nothing but unprovable opinions…(except of course, as pertains to our feelings of the heart, then even that's still highly debatable)

The human mind/ego/soul is too fallible, as most will use their ego, polluted by the infinity problem of soul capacity, to pollute the mind's final positions___this is just as often true of science, as of religion, etc. So, herein lies the problem, as I see it___The human mind/ego/soul itself___being___is too fallible to be trusted, without verifiable objective facts of observation, to back up logic, to create any absolute facts of any realities…

Now, for a moment, just look at the other side. Let's take the most violating of science and logic___religion. They most all believe in an infallible soul, yet the soul can be exaggerated to any powers of delusions, especially the more emotional it becomes. These exaggerations, when added to the mind, only enhance the mythical power of the ego, and do not add to any true logic. These are absolutely subjective states of opinions, when inferred into logic, and can only produce more opinions. This isn't to say that opinions can not become facts, as they often do, but not until purified by the realities of the absolutely objective world.(opinions themselves don't actually become facts__we simply exchange our opinions for facts) This isn't to say emotions aren't real and can't be studied, as they are scientifically cognitively studied all the time, but it's through a massive historical database of objective observational case studies, which I may add, are usually ignored by the opinionists, lacking these and other scientific logical objective facts…

True logic only works factually true with absolute objective objects' ideas inferred in, first___always___period... Any other type of logic, is polluted by, quite often, false opinion... This has been the trouble and reason that metaphysics has been truly unable to enhance the study of being beyond its feeble state of incompleteness___being is absolutely scientifically incomplete... We must get off our big egos and recognize this fact...

Now, what is it we are truly looking at, as pertains to our selves, seeing themselves, as the pure ‘tabula rasa’ state…?

Are we physical…? Yes… Are we mental…? Yes…? Is our mental, physical…? Iff viewed from the known perspective of em-waves being physical__yes… Do we have scientific experiments of thought being physical em-waves…? Yes, we certainly do, with all the new and powerful magnetic field experiments being performed in labs all around the world__where different areas of thought can be enhanced and retarded by simple proximity applications of such powerful magnetic fields. And further, new memory experiments are also showing PKM Zeta’s abilities to enhance and retard, or even erase long-term memories. So, we actually do have real world experiments relating brain states to neuro-biological body states, for the first era in history__which in my opinion, clearly repudiates the mind-body duality. If so, then the epistemological and scientific question becomes__'How do we know the brain starts out as a pure state ‘tabula rasa’__and is only filled in by information from the external world’s database, the internal memory, and the objective epistemology of the neuro-bio-epistemic brain-body connections…?’ And stronger still; ‘How do we know the epistmic agent, ‘tabula rasa’ acquires its own free-will choices…?’

The ‘Tabula Rasa’s’ Free-Will Mechanics__How…?

Simply put; “It’s mathematically impossible for the ‘tabula rasa’ not to exist as the proto-state of brain/mind, and self-acquire its own necessary free-will…” First, were the proto-state of brain/mind to exist as a fixed state of pre-existing programming and knowledge in an innate neuro-bio-state agency__How would such an agency state, change and update itself, from such a fixed innate state to a changing and changed state…? How would such fixed innate states explain our simple and complex changing personalities, talents and creativities, especially the actor’s choice, to assume any personality available upon self-command__to exist and function…? How would a pre-set will update its survival needs, on the fly__which we know it certainly does__to meet all of life’s many multitudes of changing challenges…? How would a fixed brain/mind pick one of millions of data-bits entering its inference engine, every month__without becoming over-whelmed into outright schizophrenia__had it no free-will to pick and choose…? These, and many thousands of similar questions can only be answered by a thoroughly dynamic system, capable of constant and eternal updating, of the data-bits entering its inference engine__and in no way could such a fixed proto-pre-set mechanics achieve such massive dynamics, as that of a constantly up-datable fundamental ‘tabula rasa’ having its absolutely necessary ‘free-will…’ If you think it could or can, then you are working with an entirely different information base than I am, and yet, I’ve truly studied them all__so, good luck explaining a ‘non-tabula rasa’ and a ‘non-free-will’__Without the help of great magic… Btw, all ‘non-tabula rasa’ thinking has simply turned the historical knowledge on its head, by 'stealing' this long history’s hard work, and simply offering its false ‘counterfactual’ information, while necessarily using the very data of history’s opposite discoveries, as it false informations__in other words, turning truth on its head, as a lie, and calling it__its own new truth__Blaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…!!!

Here’s the five hurdles you’ll have to overcome:

1. Strong Determinism is a complete self-contradiction of its own self-necessity and self-consistencies__It uses the language mechanics of free-will choices, to attempt proofs against free-will, i.e., tis counterfactual, question begging, or the snake swallowing its own tail, or/and the conclusion is deriving far more from the statement mechanics’ premise/s than is present, to possibly deduct from it/them, i.e., tis a false deduction logic…

2. Strong Determinism is an infinite regress to a logical impossibility__It bases its arguments on cause and effect, yet when its cause and effect is chased to its true deductive foundations in absolute fundamental motion mechanics, there’s absolutely no fundamental prime mover mechanics known, to found such fallacious circular logic on, therefore__tis a pretentious logic, and impossible of absolutely true groundings…

3. Free-will is a perfect Q.M. engine__It’s indiscernible as to absolute foundation, except as to its general motion and simple choices, through highly possible frequency mechanics__Its foundation is indeterminism, randomness and/or uncertainty, etc., at base__We simply don’t yet know how it fully mechanically works, but are absolutely certain it works, as intuitive choice is a fact of human decision and judgment function, and also creativity__which can not be disproved, except by determinism's illogical feeble attempts by using this same free-will intuitive choice function, which certainly is no proof, but is its logical opposite, and such counterfactuals are dis-allowed in logic… A never equals not A…

4. Strong Determinism can never be intelligent, as it falsely attempts to eliminate the intelligence of its own necessary free-will choices, to be intelligent__and such attempts are highly offensive to all sound intelligence, without the determinist even recognizing the offensiveness of his statements, being identical to calling intelligent free-will’ers__highly stupid, especially when the sound logical proofs are on the free-will’ers side__Not the side of the determinists’ illusions and delusions of false scientific grandeur…

5. The Necessary Free-Will, to Be Subjectively and Objectively Intelligent, Exists__and oppositely__To advocate strong or absolute determinism, is to (unknowingly-implyingly) call everyone else who doesn’t agree__Stupid…! Strong determinism produces all its own logical self-contradictions__from its negative infinite regresses to nothing but pure ego, since its own logic kicks its own legs out from under it__Splat…!!!

HOW PEIRCEAN WAS THE “FREGEAN” REVOLUTION IN LOGIC?

2011-07-05T05:57:00.000-07:00

(I strongly advise all logicians, analytic philosophers and linguists to please read this:)

Irving H. Anellis

Abstract. The historiography of logic conceives of a Fregean revolution in which modern mathematical logic (also called symbolic logic) has replaced Aristotelian logic. The preeminent expositors of this conception are Jean van Heijenoort (1912–1986) and Do-nald Angus Gillies. The innovations and characteristics that comprise mathematical logic and distinguish it from Aristotelian logic, according to this conception, created ex nihlo by Gottlob Frege (1848–1925) in his Begriffsschrift of 1879, and with Bertrand Rus-sell (1872–1970) as its chief This position likewise understands the algebraic logic of Augustus De Morgan (1806–1871), George Boole (1815–1864), Charles Sanders Peirce (1838–1914), and Ernst Schröder (1841–1902) as belonging to the Aristotelian tradi-tion. The “Booleans” are understood, from this vantage point, to merely have rewritten Aristotelian syllogistic in algebraic guise.

The most detailed listing and elaboration of Frege’s innovations, and the characteristics that distinguish mathematical logic from Aristotelian logic, were set forth by van Heijenoort. I consider each of the elements of van Heijenoort’s list and note the extent to which Peirce had also developed each of these aspects of logic. I also consider the extent to which Peirce and Frege were aware of, and may have influenced, one another’s logical writings.

A JourneyFinding MyselfMy Total Self…

2011-05-25T13:01:00.000-07:00

As a child, my eyes fell upon a world of beauty and conflict__the awesome beauty of nature and even man’s doings, yet at the same time, saw the immense conflicts between man and man, man and woman, woman and woman. I remember early on asking myself; “Why was the world of nature so exquisitely perfect, and yet the world of man so fraught with problems…?”__as I clearly saw these human problems within the very house I lived in, where four generations of family members tried to blend, and often failed to come to terms with one another. Even though I full well realized nature had to kill to live, as did man and woman, I saw far more civility and comity among the animals, than did I among the humans. Animals were much kinder to one another, at least of the same kind, and even of different kinds, when the farmer taught them to behave__as they stayed behaved and kind, once taught__that is, iff taught by a kind, knowing and caring enough farmer. I saw no animals forming armies to kill other animal armies of the same kind, or even innocent others unnecessarily so, or seeming to have the bitter personal battles over belongings, turf and space__as did our human crowd, and my close family, relatives and friends. This drastic difference of natural beauty and conflict puzzled me immensely, and would come to take up most of my life’s search for the reasons why…

Now, maybe I didn’t have the average family, as did many others__I did have a family of immense diversity__from the lowliest uneducated farmers and housewives, to the highest educated businessmen, gentlemen, engineers, mathematicians and politicians. The main farm I was raised on even had its own black-smith shop, complete with forge and foundry, to make all the tools, machinery and implements needed for our farm, and many others around the area. Gramps was the educated patriarch of the family, with more than a few college educated children, grand-children and great-grand-children college educated and not. Even some of the in-laws were highly educated, and of course some not at all, as there were also uneducated farmers and housewives amongst them. Now, as you may well imagine, this was quite an eclectic bunch of drastically different personality people, all trying to assimilate to some form of family function. Of course not all mentioned lived on this single farm, but were all often visiting members of gramps’ and great-gramps’ families__as gramps and great gramps were of unrelated families, yet of the same contemporary generation, since gramps married the maid of his family business enterprises, who was the young daughter of great-grand-dad__as gramps' wife had died giving birth to her 11th child. Grammy was the only person able to reach gramps, and bring him out of his depression, of losing his childhood sweetheart wife in childbirth, after a long hard year of deep mourning. Anyway, I mention this as it seems quite important for shaping gramps into the great humanitarian he became, after the death of his first wife__where he would go on to not only build major business enterprises, in several diverse fields, but also to take the time to become a very effective politician, and to educate most every family member, to, or at least near, his level of knowledge proficiency__as only he had the patience to do so__which also included my mother, father, sisters, brother and myself__along with the majority of the greater family members, also…

As my father was the wild-card_the black-sheep_of this massive extended family, he had to be the rebel, and quit school in the 8th grade__but couldn’t escape being educated by all the close influences around him, and actually took to self-educating himself, all through the years of his life, to keep up with his highly educated mathematically and medically inclined wife, and finally end as a full-fledged inventor and engineer__himself. In fact, of all the highly educated family members, only gramps and dad, would I grant the level of knowledge proficiency being achieved, above that of all the other college educated family members__even of the several other PhD’s in our family__so this always gave me a unique perspective about academics and common sense, in general. I always saw common sense and kindness trumping academics__as the number one necessary influence of an educated life__as I never met two wiser men than my grandfather and my father__one having a Ph.D. education, and his and his second wife’s son, my father, having an 8th grade education, and one day of high-school, whose mother was originally the 1st family’s maid, until she married gramps, 30 years her senior…

Now, many would say; “Well no wonder you witnessed so much family conflict…”__but that wouldn’t be true either, as I saw this same family conflict in every other family I ever got to know, well enough to know and see it. We weren’t special in the human conflict department of families, by any means. We were actually quite in the lesser end of the family conflict arena, as near as I could tell__but it was still far more than my young mind cared for, when I was such a tender aged child__as seeing my younger sister in tears, more times than I care to remember, was not a pretty picture to me__and this was over woman to woman conflict, or I should say, mother to daughter conflict__while I was treated like a King__Why…? This would take many years for my young mind to solve, as it would all the many other family, relatives, friends and acquaintance conflicts I witnessed, at these young ages, and as time would tell, all the rest of my life. “Why were humans so cruel to each other?__I just had to know…!”__While the wild animals, and even the insects, were so kind and even extremely co-operative, as I witnessed with ant and bee colonies__as compared to human collectives…

I don’t know, but maybe I had a starting advantage on others in understanding this deep personal conflict between like and diverse groups of human beings. Gramps, mother, father, friends and others always taught me as much as they knew, that is as I asked about anyway, and I had early on developed the innate curiosity to ask many questions of anyone I knew and met, who always seemed to answer my quests__and of course this had started with my two grandfathers, one educated and one not__but both willing to share all he knew with my young soul. And this same privilege extended to most all my other relatives and friends__then extended into school with certain other students, whose parents had taught them far beyond what that particular education system was offering__But, none of this help offered the deep interest and quest in personal humanity I shared with my deep investigating self. Every time I entered these deepest of areas quests with others, it always seemed to short out into some personal answer they had learned, and not discovered for themselves__as my feelings always rejected their answers as not being that deeper or deepest answer I was always seeking__and this didn’t seem to matter how educated or not, they were, and some of the closest to my ideas, actually came from many throughout my life, that were not educated, as their kindness had granted them a personal perspective into their own quite deep inner sanctums. Still, from the earliest ages to my ripe age of 66, I’ve yet to meet or read anyone with that all deepest of questions’ answers I’ve sought since childhood__at least to my satisfaction__and don’t kid yourself, as I’ve met and talked to many thousands throughout my life, and thoroughly read many thousands more__from the earliest Chinese, Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, Indians, etc., on and on__to the most present of logical, mathematical, scientific, philosophical and humanist of pre-modern and modern of thinkers possible for one mind to take in, in one lifetime__as it’s been a constant quest for me, all my life…

So, let me get to the meat of the matter; “How does thought, think about thinking…?” “Am I only ‘thought’ thinking about my own thinking…?” “Am I the thought-gap in my thinking, between other thoughts…?” “If I may be only the thought-gap, then am I nothing but space…?” “If I am nothing but space, am I nothing more than a field-continuum space…?” “If I am a continuum field-space, then am I a micro-field space, within the greater continuum field-space…?” “Am I nothing more than a field within a field, acting within and with the bio-agents of my body, interacting with its own bio-neuronal agency of some greater field-network of more inter-connected nerve synapses, called brain to mind interactions…?” “And, since Einstein stated ‘All is field, everywhere’, am I a non-deterministic quantum state evolved into a ball of free-will uniformity, shedding my randomness through self-control, in the path from my fundamental quantum states of randomness, to final uniformity as finished human product, from its initial rock sources…?” Am I, as Charles Sanders Peirce stated; “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." Now, can this highly complex paragraph by Peirce answer some of my above questions…? I am going to state that; “Iff you take the time to fully contemplate, exactly what Peirce is here stating, you can answer the question; ‘What is thought, thinking about thinking, with…?" If you may have read these three; Kant, Heisenberg or Heidegger__you may have come across similar statements about how our ‘intuition space’, or what I have referred to as the gap being the field-continuum, you may notice the almost exact similarities of these three thinkers with that of Peirce__where they also mention ideas about space__or intuitive space, as the same…

Now, the question becomes; “How can I make this plainer to you, so you may see it is the very answer to the fundamental problem of people treating people unjustly and unkindly__and only it is__as originally asked in the beginning of this story…?”__As per this question; “Why was the world of nature so exquisitely perfect, and yet the world of man so fraught with problems…?” This may be quite a task__a huge task__as it involves the entire history in ‘Inference Mechanics’, from the earliest of thinkers, to the most modern__trying to solve the epistemic gaps in our vast knowledge systems, which is actually no more than the gaps between our concepts, interacting with, within and between each and another… I do not intend to make it any more complex than it’s already been explained by Peirce’s complexity, and C. I. Lewis’ much more easily understood simplicity and clarity method, of stating the same as Peirce, with different language and ideation__yet I’ll try to fill in the missing pieces to make it even more plain, clear and simple__as it’s nothing more than the ‘missing mind mechanics’, that have made us all act bad__when its truths could have allowed us to act good, had we but known it’s truths’ mechanics of ‘modal feelings and emotions’, to our physical actions’ much more ordered and better 'Possibilities...'

Let’s look at Peirce’s above statement, and see if we can parse it into a much clearer and simpler understanding. Above I’ve used the term; ‘Inference Mechanics’, as that’s what ‘concept mechanics’ has been named since its inception in antiquity, by most every ancient culture who studied the mind deeply, no matter who or where__and is exactly what Peirce expressed in his above paragraph. I'd also like to here enter another of Peirce's clear statements; "The elements of every concept enter into logical thought at the gate of perception and make their exit at the gate of purposive action; and whatever cannot show its passports at both those two gates is to be arrested as unauthorized by reason.” Now, by adhering to the original terms, we avoid all the unnecessary confusions and conflations of ideas and ideations pertaining to this simple, yet highly over-complexified subject__in the history of the world. This is simply about perception, and abstracting that perception out of our subjective emotions and intellects, and into our objective emotions and intellects__to achieve rational understanding of our primitive feelings and visions of the real external and real internal worlds__one inanimate and one of animate and innate quality, when viewed with proper categories and concepts. As you’ve probably noticed, I’ve stated both subjective and objective emotions and intellect__as ‘conceptual inference mechanics’, and in order for it to be fully functioning and true, must process both the subjective and objective completely, to finally understand how humanity with humanity, really functions, and or can function, esthetically valid to our deepest wishes, of best ordered states, of highest ordered states of a new and true moral justice, for the highest numbers of Earth’s citizens__possible. That may seem like a tall order, bordering on the sycophantic utopias of ‘laughed at times and ideas’ of the past__but think again__this is new and revolutionary discovery of pure thought mechanics__best represented by Peirce’s discovery of the 3rd branch of logic__‘Abduction’__which allows this deepest of levels of personal and logical thinking...

Oh, I hear many of you screaming already__“That doesn’t work. It’s been tried and proven a failure, already…” No… I’m here to tell you it’s simply the anti-philosophers and thinkers who lack the understanding necessary to understand ‘Abduction’, whose understanding doesn’t understand ‘Modal Logic’__and because they do not understand our fundamental ‘Natural Modal Logic’__they also fail to understand strong ‘Modal Abduction…’ This simply makes these false sycophants and pretenders to knowledge, nothing but ‘anti-modal fools’ of what we’d really consider true, valid and fully quantified modal logical knowledge__in the real world. Sad to say, that these anti-modal sycophants have been ruling the academic roosts of the world’s institutions, over the last 60+ years__and this is the sole reason humanism has been divorced from science and academics__leaving the world with the criminalized secular nonsense destroying, what could otherwise be a new renaissance in humanistic expansionary seeding and growing__with ‘Modal Humanism’ and ‘Abduction’ leading the way into a new era of true human values being re-entered into our sad world’s state of present affairs. It’s long overdue we learn the truth of our ancient philosophies of true and profound, yet simple ‘Inference Mechanics’__and an ‘inference mechanics’ that includes our historically cherished evolutionary human moral-justice values__our real intellectual soul’s foundation in historical habitual objective emotional experience…

You may ask why I’ve mentioned objective emotional experience as our foundational base of values__think about it__Is there something preventing you of recognizing the greater capacity of your basic emotions and feelings of modally acting objectively as well as subjectively_or vice versa…? No, there certainly is not__As a matter of fact, you are only crippling yourself, if you are not using both sides of your full human capacity to process your experiences, and it’s simply the process of recognizing the fact that base feelings and emotions are capable of being processed through our ‘inference mechanics’ both subjectively and objectively. We process subjectively when we want our judgments to feel about our ideas, and we process objectively when we want our judgments to rationalize about our ideas, as many situations of our human experiences necessitate both states at different times__and sometimes both at once__for our lives to have true feeling and meaning, with full understanding of our own and others’ feelings, and also the necessities of ours, others’ and the world’s truly rational actions. I don’t know about you, but I intend to keep processing with both sides of my mind, as I’ve never had any trouble doing so__and only feel sorry for those who try and improperly discriminate science against humanism, as do all too many anti-modal sycophants in this far too crass and mean modern world__They should learn the powers of the new modal humanism springing forth, in our present modally logical pragmatic world, being enhanced and sped forth, by the semantic web and the internet’s many free-wills. I kind of doubt they can hold back the rising tide…

Let’s look at this effective ‘modal inference mechanics’ a bit deeper, especially as ‘abduction’ is explicated within its mechanics. The ‘knowledge gaps’ already mentioned have posed problems for philosophy and its epistemic studies for millennia__this is nothing new, but what is new is the fact within__that ‘modal inference mechanics’ can solve these ‘knowledge gaps’ and actually fill in all of Kant’s ‘thing in itself’ missing pieces. Yes, that’s exactly what I said__solve all the empty problems created by Kant’s ‘ding an sich’ unknowns, as there really are no unknowns__of true general importance to us, as human beings trying to survive this massive world of modern confusion and false conflation. You could say Plato and Aristotle started this ‘ding an sich’ myth with falsely thinking ‘rationality’ needed to be grounded in ‘God’, then others such as Kant and Hegel tried to avoid grounding in the effable ‘God’ by developing ‘ding an sich’ for Kant and ‘notion’ for Hegel__which is really still ‘God’ with a new name. Then of course there’s the idealistic ‘phenomenon’ for some, and the ‘epiphenomenal given’ for still others, or ‘epiphenomenal energy’ for still others__until finally Quantum Mechanics learned a true grounding could be achieved in the real world, and particle-wave physics, in the pure randomness and indeterminacy of its fundamental mechanics understandings, within ‘Statistical Mechanics’ solving for ‘Probability Mechanics’, or even indiscernibles(where measurements are above and or below/exceed our Planck scale capacities to measure), of the ‘absolute fundamental substance’__simply meaning there exists nothing more fundamental than the ‘absolute fundamental’, even if we can’t fully define or measure it__its generality is still the ‘absolute fundamental state of substance’ no matter what it turns out to be finally named__as modal necessity requires it to absolutely, fundamentally exist, as is already proven by R. Barcan’s modal logic necessity formulas and proofs of the `40’s. Anyway, this allows us to have an absolute grounding for science in its true ground of our real World and Universe, when these ‘absolute fundamental substance’ particle-waves combinatorially add up to our Universe’s well known and obviously existing general uniformity__we all see, when we simply look. I’d simply refer the reader to C. I. Lewis’ excellent book; ‘Mind And The World Order’ for further well explained and explicated ideas of the above, as relates back to C. S. Peirce, and to H. R. Fischer’s; ‘Abductive Reasoning as a Way of Worldmaking’ for his excellent explication of Peirce’s ‘Abduction…’

As to putting all this into simple common sense words all can easily understand__”I can think and feel any way I choose about the world__I’m a free-willed human being, but, if I want a better world, I best advise myself, I’d better pay close attention to how I use my personal to intellectual thoughts, ideas, judgments and ideations of my world__if I care to make a better world__as careless thinking can only further destroy our world.” I full well realize my subjective and objective feelings and intellectual mathematics, rationality and logic can all be easily and fully processed through my fundamental ‘inference mechanics’ and that my third branch of logic__‘Abduction’__is simply my ‘Method of Hypothesis’ for science, and my deep personal ‘Re-Thinking of Thoughts’ is the same, for my personal feelings’ world__where I can solve all those seeming oh-so-hard emotional problems, etc., and even many of the hard science problems, if I but open my eyes to all these simple ‘inference mechanics’ uses, and simply understand which modal direction I wish to process my information toward__The psychological emotional, or the logical intellectual__and fully learn not to conflate or confuse the two, as they are simply separate desires. ‘Inference Mechanics’ is nothing more than our ‘Base Knowledge Mechanics’__‘What I Can See, I Can Know’__"And, We Can See All Our Inferences Very Clearly, When We But Look, Even The First Inferences 'The World First Infers'__When We All First Opened Our Eyes And Minds, As Children…"

Finally, don’t let me forget to mention the all so important a/estheticians, or better known as the German humanists, as no logic and science functions properly without their necessary marriage with esthetics__no matter how much others think it does__It does not. From Baumgarten, who’s all importance to Kant’s ‘Third Critique of Judgment’ can’t afford to be left out, as Kant’s ideas would never have gained traction without Baumgarten’s esthetic influences__and the later esthetically influenced German humanists would maybe never have existed without Baumgarten’s original work and influence. Goethe, Schiller, Herbart and Steiner, etc., may have just been minor footnotes in history, if not for Baumgarten’s mastery of the esthetic nature of humanity, being spread wide by Kant’s system__so, when you may start to frown upon the mathematicians, scientists and logicians like Kant, Peirce, Lewis, Barcan and such others, don’t forget it was his massive influence that helped spread the popularity of German a/esthetic humanism, and its major influence on Peirce’s logic, which later influenced Lewis, Barcan and many other moderns__to possibly allow humanity’s return to ‘Humanity’s Humanness…’

And again from Peirce: “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." Imo, this is the most important message to thoroughly know and understand__in all its potential QM implications...

Also: Abduction Link...

(Click to enlarge... Peirce's inference mechanics paragraph, as explained by Lefebvre, in graphic form...)

Bogeyman Economics...

2011-05-21T06:02:00.000-07:00

by Katy Delay

I'm just a buffoon, and I love a little laughter. We all need a little comic relief from time to time, so I like to make light of the economic mess we're in. However, when surly individuals with Ph.D.s and/or lots of government power start making spooky declarations and rattling their chains, I get a little nervous. After all, they could hurt somebody.

Take Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, and Alan Blinder, for example.

A few months ago, Dr. Bernanke looked Steve Croft straight in the eye and declared his absolute faith that the Federal Reserve can keep our economy stable and, at the same time withdraw the Fed's monetary support as soon as prices rise too much in the U.S.

I guess he thinks prices outside the country can rise as much as they want and it's not our problem. Yet credible researchers argue that U.S. monetary looseness is directly behind the current international rise in dollar-priced commodities. (See this Steve H. Hanke article for a breath of fresh common sense.) And rising food and raw material prices around the world cause misery, poverty, and death. (See this report by the World Bank.)

Then almost in the same sentence Bernanke went on to tell Steve about controlling "market expectations." Now, which is it, Sir? Does withdrawal of monetary support really stop incipient price inflation, or is price inflation merely the result of "market expectations"? Because in the latter case, you must believe that the Fed's words are more important that its actions.

But even Bernanke seems to admit that, sooner or later, the Fed will have to correct the situation; yet I don't see how the Fed can withdraw liquidity without causing a rise in interest rates and a second serious economic dip. So I suspect Bernanke and his colleagues are hoping against hope they can keep liquidity high, convince the markets that price inflation isn't going to happen, and then -- Voila, no price inflation, i.e. an economic miracle. Good luck to you, Doc. When it goes awry, either with price inflation or a second dip, don't say I didn't tell you so.

Then there's our Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Timothy Geithner, warning us that the debt ceiling must be raised or America could default. Now, you and I know this is nonsense. (If you're not sure, read this common sense piece from Michael D. Tanner.) But no matter to the all-powerful Mr. Geithner. Recently his main purpose in life has been to scare debt-wary Republicans into believing they're driving the country into default. But, Mr. Geithner, what happens when Congress does raise the ceiling? Obviously, it condones the debt spending. But wait a minute, don't you get it, Sir? We don't want any more debt. How much of "No more!" don't you understand? You may not care if the U.S. retains its credibility, but we do.

Professor Alan Blinder, a Keynesian voodoo-economics professor at Princeton, declares that "if we crash into the debt ceiling ... it's not likely to be pretty. [WSJ commentary.] ... "At some point," says Blinder, "Mr. Geithner could wind up brooding over horrible questions like these: Do we stop issuing checks for Social Security benefits, or for soldiers' pay, or for interest payments to the Chinese government? Such agonizing choices are what make default imaginable."

Sounds like plain old scaremongering to me. This guy is the kind of academic soothsayer who furnishes politicians like Geithner with serious-sounding, credentialed ammunition. Shame on you, Professor. You're lucky you won't have to pay for the mess when U.S. debt explodes off the charts and we can't even pay the interest anymore.

Blinder goes on: "[S]uppose the federal government actually does reduce its expenditures by 40% overnight. That translates to roughly $1.5 trillion at annual rates, or about 10% of GDP. That's an enormous fiscal contraction for any economy to withstand, never mind one in a sluggish recovery with 9% unemployment. Even contemplating such a possibility is evidence of a dark, self-destructive impulse."

So Professor, which is the more self-destructive party: the academics like yourself, along with the politicians and their voters, who have gotten the U.S. into the worst pickle of its history, or those who would try to save us from people like you? No, you can't scare me -- well, wait; actually, you DO scare me. But not for the reasons you think.

American jurisprudence is missing one important element: Political Accountability. American citizens should be able to hold individuals in positions of power accountable for their recommendations and actions, other than just voting them out of office. If people want the power, they should get the liability.

There should be a law that anyone in a position of power who makes policy decisions that later turn out to be wrong should be held responsible and should give up everything they own or will ever earn, in order to pay back a fraction of what is owed to all those who have been harmed.

Drunk bus drivers who cause accidents are fired and penalized, even put in jail. Politicians inebriated by the headiness of power, and academics swollen with their sense of self-importance, can cause billions of losses to defenseless citizens with no fear of reprisal. What do they get when they screw up? A comfortable pension, full retirement benefits, and a book deal.

That's Bogeyman Economics for you.

The Paradoxers and Non-Paradoxers of Feelings, Thoughts and Logics…

2011-04-13T11:48:00.000-07:00

The modern world of fraudulent emotions, thoughts and logics has come upon us all, so fast, most have not even yet noticed it. Everyone sees the national political debates going nowhere, on tv and most the same all around the world, and knows there’s something really wrong__but can’t quite put their finger on the real trouble. Let me tell you right up front__This is no more than the fraudulent ‘emotional and intellectual paradoxers’, that have always existed throughout different periods in history, and finally accumulate in large enough numbers to support political and social correctness laws__that really no more than over-respect the most evil emotions, thoughts, logics and wrong actions of societies__at these differing times of cultural evolutions__And, we are once again dead center in the middle of one of these same such periods. It’s no more complex than realizing certain of our most insecure personalities have learned how to emotionally and intellectually manipulate the best of social society to the worst of social society’s undesired actions. Over some centuries ago, people had a most legitimate name for these social functionaries__They were referred to as ‘good paradoxers’ and ‘bad paradoxers’ by such later notables as Augustus De Morgan__when he spoke of the centuries gone by, where the word ‘paradoxer’ had an entirely different meaning__until those who thought they knew better, who did not know better, changed the linguistic and social meaning of this older word and concept…

Here’s the best explanation of what paradoxers really were/are…

In the introduction to the Budget of Paradoxes De Morgan explains what he means by the word.

"A great many individuals, ever since the rise of the mathematical method, have, each for himself, attacked its direct and indirect consequences. I shall call each of these persons a paradoxer, and his system a paradox. I use the word in the old sense: a paradox is something which is apart from general opinion, either in subject matter, method, or conclusion. Many of the things brought forward would now be called crotchets, which is the nearest word we have to old paradox. But there is this difference, that by calling a thing a crotchet we mean to speak lightly of it; which was not the necessary sense of paradox. Thus in the 16th century many spoke of the earth's motion as the paradox of Copernicus and held the ingenuity of that theory in very high esteem, and some I think who even inclined towards it. In the seventeenth century the deprivation of meaning took place, in England at least."

How can the sound paradoxer be distinguished from the false paradoxer? De Morgan supplies the following test:

"The manner in which a paradoxer will show himself, as to sense or nonsense, will not depend upon what he maintains, but upon whether he has or has not made a sufficient knowledge of what has been done by others, especially as to the mode of doing it, a preliminary to inventing knowledge for himself... New knowledge, when to any purpose, must come by contemplation of old knowledge, in every matter which concerns thought; mechanical contrivance sometimes, not very often, escapes this rule. All the men who are now called discoverers, in every matter ruled by thought, have been men versed in the minds of their predecessors and learned in what had been before them. There is not one exception."

"I remember that just before the American Association met at Indianapolis in 1860, the local newspapers heralded a great discovery which was to be laid before the assembled savants -- a young man living somewhere in the country had squared the circle. While the meeting was in progress I observed a young man going about with a roll of paper in his hand. He spoke to me and complained that the paper containing his discovery had not been received. I asked him whether his object in presenting the paper was not to get it read, printed and published so that everyone might inform himself of the result; to all of which he assented readily. But, said I, many men have worked at this question, and their results have been tested fully, and they are printed for the benefit of anyone who can read; have you informed yourself of their results? To this there was no assent, but the sickly smile of the false paradoxer"

The Budget consists of a review of a large collection of paradoxical books which De Morgan had accumulated in his own library, partly by purchase at bookstands, partly from books sent to him for review, partly from books sent to him by the authors. He gives the following classification: squarers of the circle, trisectors of the angle, duplicators of the cube, constructors of perpetual motion, subverters of gravitation, stagnators of the earth, builders of the universe. You will still find specimens of all these classes in the New World and in the new century. De Morgan gives his personal knowledge of paradoxers.

"I suspect that I know more of the English class than any man in Britain. I never kept any reckoning: but I know that one year with another? -- and less of late years than in earlier time? -- I have talked to more than five in each year, giving more than a hundred and fifty specimens. Of this I am sure, that it is my own fault if they have not been a thousand. Nobody knows how they swarm, except those to whom they naturally resort. They are in all ranks and occupations, of all ages and characters. They are very earnest people, and their purpose is bona fide, the dissemination of their paradoxes. A great many -- the mass, indeed -- are illiterate, and a great many waste their means, and are in or approaching penury. These discoverers despise one another."

Now, back to my reason for entering De Morgan’s ideas about true and false paradoxers, as relates to my first paragraph… Not only do these people exist in the mathematical, logical and physical sciences, of which De Morgan was so familiar, but in the soft-sciences of sociology, political science, cultural studies and psychology, etc.__as well… I think at this point I should enter a para that shows where my thinking is mainly drawn from, and who drew the above, quoted from De Morgan:

"In Logic, I am the exponent of a particular tendency, that of physical sciences. I make the pretension to being the most thorough going and fundamental representative of that element who has yet appeared. I believe that my system of logic (which is a philosophical method to which mathematical algebra only affords aid in a particular part of it) must stand, or else the whole spirit of the physical sciences must be revolutionized. If this is to happen, it cannot be brought about in any way so quickly as by the philosophical formularization of it and the carrying of it to its furthest logical consequences. If on the other hand it is to abide, its general statement will be of consequence for mankind. I have measured my powers against those of other men; I know what they are. It is my part to announce with modest confidence what I can do. My system has been sketched out but not so that its bearings can be appreciated. If the world thinks it worth developing, they have only to give me the means of doing it. But if not, I shall follow another path, with perfect contentment." C.S. Peirce

Imo, only by looking at the very fundamentals of our feelings, thoughts and logics will we ever get to the bottom of modern societies’ troubles__and since all troubles start in our feelings about our world, of other thoughts and logics, all other thoughts and logics must be dealt with from this most fundamental foundationalism of such levels. Imo, nowhere can we jump from base feelings to informal and or formal logics, without first considering our most fundamental pre-suppositional feelings__and nowhere can we consider other thoughts and feelings, without also considering the full story our higher thoughts and logics have to tell our base feelings__When we do, we simply do nothing but cheat ourselves of true knowledge__and feed the procrustean and pugilistic paradoxers, and the very subtle cousins of the other paradoxer’s excess-empathy-pushers, etc. We have been making this humongous mistake of feelings’, thoughts’ and logics’ separations__for, oh I don’t know when or how long__forever, I guess…

Since I can see I’m going to make no sense here, as it’s really clearly outside my expertise, let me simply enter an e-mail to a friend, I recently wrote on the same subject:

Hi, and no I have never read anything of MacIntyre's, as this is far from what I'm more interested in, by way of logical and mathematical foundations of all ideas. I simply thought by reading the author's review, which seemed to offer some historical points, it may be valuable. You see to me, morality, ethics, emotions and values are as I described to you with that liberty graph(the golden mean), where people and societies act within a middle band-width of actions acceptable to the majority, as per the habits of social laws passed by chance experience collisions over the years, of these societies' evolutions__just as Peirce described it. To me, law is all societies' social codex of morality, yet all societies' have different chance experiences, which created each society's moral codex of laws. And yes, societies have always had people always wanting to exceed the band-width of accepted normalacy on both ends of the legal and social spectrum__serial killers on the upper end, and extreme empathy pushers and such, on the other end. Both are wrong, but only guided by our societies' moral law codes passed by habitual evolutions of such chance experience collisions, turned into the moral laws we do have__but none have the complete laws to guide human actions(nor can they) and keep the extremist manipulators and destroyers from taking advantage of the incommensurables that are impossible of creating law for__Just think how ridiculous it'd be to pass empathy laws of; "You must do and act as I say."__Yet that is what some of your students are trying to force on you__No...?

Imo, when the experiential self fails to cope__the social law codex must be invoked... It's that simple, as personal experiential emotions is a dead end in the ego, of errors and false beliefs(realize, knowledge also lives inside that same ego-space, in so many words, except is drawn from external facts, and internal ideation of). The social law codex is drawn from the intellect of historical experience of passing a far too strict a moral law code; religions etc., and a far too loose a moral law code; Attila The Hun and Genghis Khan marching over the top of every society, and bludgeoning all in their paths, etc. So, you see again, both Aristotle and Peirce were correct on the point of 'Habits'__as it's only our interpretation of evolutionary experiences, we have the actual moral law codexes we do. Though they ain't perfect__It's the best a chaotic-minded human species can achieve__until we can evolve our intellects to understanding the new and superior economic and social systems being talked about and offered by a few, all around the world__at present(but, it's anyone's guess when we'll awake, or at least as to the critical number of actioners/actuators). The times, they are a changing, and these new systems will be being talked about__when society finally realizes__'All existing systems have extremely false and fraudulent foundations, and fundamentals of much naive thought...’

I've been working on an article about all this, for about a week now, or after you spoke to me__as I realized it was also so in the center of my problems of reaching the audiences I'm attempting to__but, it's turning out to be more difficult to write than I first thought it may be, as I've really only got the first paragraph, then about 6 paras from Augustus De Morgan, about the paradoxers and non-paradoxers__or truth destroyers, and truth-makers... Here's the title__The Paradoxers of Feelings, Thoughts and Logics…

I'll send it to you when I'm done, but it may be a while, as I'm re-researching much of Peirce's ideas as relates to De Morgan's and many, many others. Imo, Peirce is the foundational logic and experiential mechanics of all modern societies__yet the world ain't yet figured this out. I can't find anyone highly intelligent of late__that doesn't directly or indirectly run back into Peirce's oh so modern thinking__as I've been tracing this foundationalism out through hundreds of other modern thinkers in all fields of study__all over the world. Imo, if they know anything, they've studied Peirce, or someone else who has__He's that important...

A wee bit o' advise__Try to sort the non-created ideas of feelings’ experiences, from the created ideas of intellectual experience... Created ideas are those ideas we improve upon__at least conceptually or model-wise, of our base experiential feelings. We improve upon our base experiences by understanding the necessary priorities of intellectually realized moral codex law, over our personally assumed egoic false beliefs about the same...(this is a long hard lesson to learn, and must be intricately traveled, over time) Remember, when we draw from our beliefs, we are drawing from our ego at the all too often dead-end of that personal experience’s aporia-tunnel, and quite often creating unintended errors... When we draw from our experiential intellects, we are drawing from everybody's trials and errors, into the best fit possible(if possible)__as per the West's moral codexes of laws, and this seems to be far better, and more mature than Sharia law__No...?(aporia above meaning 'incommensurabilities of the hazy indiscernibles')

Hope that helps, as when the emotions fail, one should find the proper experiential and intellectual 'habits' of the centuries... These are the general universal 'habits' of our greater humanity__Our natural morality, which is no more than a fair balance of acceptable opposites__among differing parties, or that oh so respectable moral liberty, to the best fit possible...

There exists only personal experiential comfort...
There exists only intellectual experiential knowledge...
These two are drawn from two distinct sources__belief and facts...
The scientific method, is the only method of facts__the laws of...

P.s.
I can explain all this much better to you, in person__as it really takes too many words without personal eye and body language presence... And I have realized much more about it, since we last spoke... Btw, it sounds to me like you probably forgot what I mentioned to you about the liberty graph's importance in understanding the 'mean(golden) limits of personal experience', that can only be sorted and handled by social law... It's the best-fit humanity's got... When the personal fails, the law must come to the rescue... Just a reminder...

What was Keynes' view of "too big to fail...?"

2011-03-12T09:47:00.000-08:00

In short, tax, confiscate and legally reform all such excesses back to sane and functional systems, benefitting the greater society far more equitably__Just as FDR did in the `30's, by instituting many of Keynes' ideas, then...

Suggested modern updates by Davidson, as a modern extension of Keynes' ideas... (This is a much more complex system than represented here. It is not a single global currency system, as may be interpreted. All nations maintain local currency. It's only for international trade and financial transactions' management__the real problem area, which also includes self-liquidating national debts, and major local subsidiarity improvements, allowing future sustainability... This is the same system Plato first suggested some 2400 years ago__'All have eyes and ears, but practically none see and listen...")

“Elsewhere(Davidson) I have developed in detail a proposal for reforming the entire international payments system via an international clearing union that provides for capital controls and other necessary and sufficient conditions to permit the establishment of a golden age in the 21st century. The main proviso of my proposal are:

1. The unit of account and ultimate reserve asset for international liquidity is the International Money Clearing Unit (IMCU). All IMCU's are held only by central banks, not by the public.

2. Each nation's central bank is committed to guarantee one way convertibility from IMCU deposits at the clearing union to its domestic money. Each central bank will set its own rules regarding making available foreign monies (through IMCU clearing transactions) to its own bankers and private sector residents(21). Ultimately, all major private international transactions clear between central banks' accounts in the books of the international clearing institution.

3. The exchange rate between the domestic currency and the IMCU is set initially by each nation -- just as it would be if one instituted an international gold standard.

4. Contracts between private individuals will continue to be denominated into what ever domestic currency permitted by local laws and agreed upon by the contracting parties.

5. An overdraft system to make available short-term unused creditor balances at the Clearing House to finance the productive international transactions of others who need short-term credit. The terms will be determined by the pro bono clearing managers.

6. A trigger mechanism to encourage a creditor nation to spend what is deemed (in advance) by agreement of the international community to be "excessive" credit balances accumulated by running current account surpluses. These excessive credits can be spent in three ways: (1) on the products of any other member of the clearing union, (2) on new direct foreign investment projects, and/or (3) to provide unilateral transfers (foreign aid) to deficit members.

7. A system to stabilize the long-term purchasing power of the IMCU (in terms of each member nation's domestically produced market basket of goods) can be developed. This requires a system of fixed exchange rates between the local currency and the IMCU that changes only to reflect permanent increases in efficiency wages.(22) This assures each central bank that its holdings of IMCUs as the nation's foreign reserves will never lose purchasing power in terms of foreign produced goods, even if a foreign government permits wage-price inflation to occur within its borders.

8. If a country is at full employment and still has a tendency towards persistent international deficits on its current account, then this is prima facie evidence that it does not possess the productive capacity to maintain its current standard of living. If the deficit nation is a poor one, then surely there is a case for the richer nations who are in surplus to transfer some of their excess credit balances to support the poor nation.(23) If it is a relatively rich country, then the deficit nation must alter its standard of living by reducing the relative terms of trade with major trading partners. If the payment deficit persists despite a continuous positive balance of trade in goods and services, then there is evidence that the deficit nation might be carrying too heavy an international debt service obligation. The pro bono officials of the clearing union should bring the debtor and creditors into negotiations to reduce annual debt service payments by [1] lengthening the payments period, [2] reducing the interest charges, and/or [3] debt forgiveness.(24)”

Two Pictures Show an Important Difference Between China and America...

2011-02-04T09:32:00.000-08:00

Two Pictures Show an Important Difference Between China and America
Fabius Maximus Feb 3, 2011 7:21PM Summary: Americans tend to see the mote in China’s eye but not the beam in ours. We project our dark traits onto China, no matter how absurd. Today we see two pictures that provide a rebuttal to one common myth about China and America.

The French Marshall Louis Lyautey (1854-1934) told his gardner to plant a row of trees on his estate. “My Lord, they will take a century to reach full growth” said his groundskeeper. “Then we start plant them today” replied Lyautey.

The news media and its pet pedants tell us much about China. Such as tales about China’s rampant malinvestment, unlike America — where home of entrepreneurs, where free markets rule. Google shows 37 thousand hits to the words Chinese and malinvestment. While there is probably much malinvestment in China, America has a far more serious malinvestment problem.
That’s important because over time even small differences in relative performance can produce large differences in national power.

Malinvestment in China
A new train station in Wuhan (Central China), completed December 2009 (source: Financial Times). One of the thousands of new ports, stations, and airports being built or expanded. Two generations from now these will be considered far-sighted acts of genius, building infrastructure before its needed — contributing to its current growth, built cheaply while China is poor.

Malinvestment in the USA
Meanwhile the US has 18.8 million vacant homes (18.6% 14.6% of total units), up from 13.6 million (11.7%) a decade ago (Census data). The office vacancy rate is 17.7% (per Grubb & Ellis).

But that’s a small aspect of the problem. Our critical public infrastructure is decaying (for details see “The 2009 Report Card for American Infrastructure” of the the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). And our private sector engines of innovation have atrophied. Overall levels of investment are low. The great private sector R&D centers have died, such as Bell Labs and the Palo Alto Research Center.

So where is America investing? Much of our research is done by the government. NIH, NSF, DOE, and DARPA. And what are we building to compare with China’s state of the art transportation and communication systems?

An interior view of one of the many new buildings, each roughly the size of the Pentagon, going up to house expansion of America’s intelligence agencies (official picture). Several house only computers, built near power plants because of their fantastic electricity usage. This is the new HQ of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, costing $1.8 billion. It will be the third largest building in Washington. An interesting contrast with the cuts in capex of America’s already decrepit public infrastructure.

Update: another example of “excess” investment in China — “China is planning to create the world’s biggest mega city by merging nine cities to create a metropolis twice the size of Wales with a population of 42 million.“

Almost a trillion dollars per year, America’s blood, our surplus economic product generated from one hundred million families — goes into our military and intelligence services. We spend more than the rest of the world combined, ten-fold times every possible combination of enemies. This money could rebuild our infrastructure, be invested in education and research to build a powerful America for the 21st century. Instead it gets consumed without thought or plan. Spilled carelessly.

Defense analyst Chuck Spinner describes our past and present (until we go broke) in “The Domestic Roots of Perpetual War” in Challenge: The Magazine of Economic Affairs, January/February 2011.

Posts about China LINK...

1.Power shifts from West to East: the end of the post-WWII regime in the news, 20 December 2007
2.China becomes a super-power (geopolitical analysis need not be war-mongering), 9 July 2008
3.Words to fear in the 21st century: Lǎo hǔ, lǎo hǔ, Lǎo hǔ, 14 July 2008
4.A different perspective on the US and China, seen by an American living in Russia, 23 March 2009
5.China – the mysterious other pole of the world economy, 22 July 2009
6.Another big step for China on its road to becoming a great power, 27 July 2009
7.Will China collapse?, 5 August 2009
8.A revolution is not a dinner party. Thoughts about the future of China, 19 August 2009
9.Update about China: a new center of the world, 13 December 2009
10.Fertilizer overuse destroying Chinese soil, 18 February 2010
11.Rare earths – a hidden but strategic battleground between the US and China, 5 May 2010
12.Today’s example of the inscrutable mystery of China’s economic statistics, 13 May 2010
13.How China builds its commercial empire, 12 July 2010
14.The West has power, but often little self-insight, 19 September 2010
15.A look at the future (it’s already here, but it’s not in the USA), 29 September 2010
16.Why China will again rise to the top, and their most important advantage over America, 11 November 2010

The Waves of 2011...

2010-12-31T07:10:00.000-08:00

The Waves of 2011
by John Browne

One of the founding myths of the modern global financial system was that governments, especially of the developed democracies, could borrow endlessly without consequence. But, with sovereign debt crises erupting across the globe, it appears the umbrella of perceived safety has gotten smaller, exposing some benighted countries, like Greece and Ireland, to severely rough weather.

As a key condition for financial rescues of these ailing sovereigns, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Central Bank (ECB) both demanded severe cuts in government spending. Faced with a bondholder revolt that sent yields upward, both acquiesced and have embarked on austerity campaigns to repair their financial positions.

The big question is: has the umbrella stopped shrinking, or will other countries soon face similar decisions?

For now, major governments such as the United States and European Union have been able to continue to borrow and spend licentiously to fend off the threat of deflation and keep their economies stimulated (the U.S. is by far the greater offender). But three surprising and powerful changes threaten the viability of a long-promised "exit strategy."

First, international investors are beginning to become net sellers of sovereign debt. Even the mighty United States is finding that, despite the Fed's rounds of massive quantitative easing, in which the Fed has bought outright hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. Treasuries, yields are still rising. In other words, the private and foreign selling pressure is stronger than the Fed's buying pressure.

Second, the credit agencies, stung by their failure to warn investors about the banking crisis, are now emboldened enough to threaten the triple-A ratings of member states within the EU, and even of the United States itself--now the largest debtor in the world. Although it remains to be seen how great an impact the rating agencies will have on the debt markets, the fact that such moves are being contemplated at least drives the debate in an unprecedented direction.

Third, there is considerable and growing political pressure on governments to cut spending. There is a growing awareness among Western voters that government largesse can't be maintained forever, and that it will likely cost the next generation if not the present. Many pet spending programs, including defense, healthcare, welfare and even public pensions, are getting ready for haircuts - if not scalpings. Massive government spending cuts, possibly accompanied by tax increases, will be sure to take a huge bite out of near-term GDP growth, and will perhaps put the world back into the second act of a recession. This will lead us to the next great crossroads in the global financial crisis. Put simply, will the governments of Europe and America allow a natural contraction?

If the central banks of the EU and the U.S. choose to unleash even more massive reflationary programs, then a period of crippling inflation could be the outcome. This will form the basis of monetary chaos and prolonged economic stagnation, the most damaging of all economic conditions. In these circumstances, the prices of needed raw materials and commodities, including precious metals and energy, would explode in dollar terms.

Meanwhile, Chinese inflation is beginning to drive the international agenda. In order to keep a lid on this growing problem, China will soon have no choice but to revalue its currency, the yuan, higher. This will curb inflation and make most commodities cheaper in domestic terms. It will also satisfy the increasingly angry political calls of other nations for China to revalue.

A yuan revaluation requires a devaluation of other key currencies, most dramatically the U.S. dollar, but also the pound sterling and euro. This will raise prices for food, energy, and other necessities even in the absence of action by our central banks. Such an outcome will place further economic pressures on the developed West.

In conclusion, 2011 likely will open with a deepening recession, increasing austerity, and falling asset prices. If this is met by a new round of inflation creation and yuan revaluation, then investors should weigh whether to redeploy assets in anticipation of potential rising commodity prices. I expect these developments not to happen gradually, but to come in great waves. Smart investors will tie their fate to an investment vessel with a solid hull, because in these seas, even a hint of rot could tear a ship asunder.

John Browne is an investment advisor, financial commentator and a former member of Britain’s Parliament who served on the Treasury Select Committee and as a close associate of then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Renaissance of the Gold Standard?

2010-11-27T11:35:00.000-08:00

by Martin Hutchinson... LINK...

Global opposition to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's policy, World Bank President Robert Zoellick's "trial balloon" and statements by some of the new Republican Congressional caucus have caused a modest revival in consideration of the Gold Standard. In my view, the chances of its revival by official means in the next 10 years remain infinitesimal, but there is an increasing probability of private sector activity in that direction. Not only politically, the bombed-out Gold Standard stock may have reached bottom and be beginning a modest revival.

The Gold Standard did not disappear because it caused the Great Depression (it had only modest fingerprints on that disaster) nor because Maynard Keynes called gold a "barbarous relic." In reality, its demise had a much simpler cause: the rising rate of global population growth, which caused it to become damagingly deflationary.

The gold supply is limited. At the end of 2009, the total of all the gold ever mined was about 165,000 tons, worth $7 trillion at today's prices. Most of that total is still in existence, gold being essentially indestructible. However, new mine production in 2008 and 2009—both years enjoying near-record gold prices—was only around 2,500 tons, according to the World Gold Council. Thus even at the peak of the market, gold production is only 1.5% of existing supply. This hard limit on the world's gold supply exerts a considerable monetary effect on a Gold Standard world, limiting its money supply. Without an increase in monetary velocity, the world's gold supply can accommodate global growth of only about 1.5% per annum while maintaining prices constant. If global GDP growth is higher than that, the Gold Standard will be deflationary—prices will decline. If global growth is less than 1.5% per annum, prices may increase somewhat.

During the 18th century, for example, global population rose by 0.4% per annum, from 640 million in 1700 to 980 million in 1800, according to United Nations estimates. Accordingly, if world gold supplies had increased by 1.5% per annum during that century and monetary velocity had remained constant, a global Gold Standard would have accommodated about 1.1% per annum per capita economic growth. In practice global growth during that century averaged 0.56% per annum or 0.15% per capita, so gold supplies were ample to support it, even if mining was less active and successful than in some other periods. Indeed, in actuality the century saw mild inflation in Gold Standard countries.

During the 19th century, global economic growth accelerated, to 1.85% per annum, being 1.34% growth per capita (the result of the Industrial Revolution) and 0.51% per annum population growth. Thus the gold supply became much tighter, particularly towards the end of the century as economic and population growth accelerated. There was a shortage of specie and deflation during the "Hungry Forties" before the Californian gold discoveries of 1849 and another more prolonged period of deflation in 1873-96, before the discovery of new gold deposits in South Africa and the Yukon. During those years, the gold supply was increasing at a rate below its long-term average of 1%-1.5%, so global growth above that level caused the money supply to decline in terms of Gross World Product, and deflation to occur. By the early 1890s, there were multiple calls to abandon the Gold Standard, with proposals for bimetallism and William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" presidential campaign of 1896.

In practice, mild deflation is not a major economic problem, contrary to Ben Bernanke's theories. With an interest rate close to zero, even prolonged deflation of up to about 1% annually can be tolerated, as real interest rates remain containable. The 1880s, however, showed this to be close to the maximum tolerable level—U.S. prices declined by 22% from 1880 to 1896, an annual 1.5% deflation, and the strains showed.

In 1900-25, with world population growth of about 0.8% per annum, economic growth averaged 2.6% per annum, in spite of the depredations of World War I. Not surprisingly, the Gold Standard came under huge strain. Thus the failure of the 1925-31 British return to the Gold Standard was probably inevitable; by that time, global population and economic growth had reached a level at which the Gold Standard's deflationary effect had become intolerable.

For the quarter-century 1925-50, Keynes was right; with global population growth above 1%, even World War II could not hold economic growth below 2.7%. For the next 20 years, the heyday of the Bretton Woods Agreement monetary system, the equation was even worse. Population growth averaged 1.9%, while economic growth, recovering after World War II, averaged a startling 5.6% annually, with per capita economic growth of 3.7% annually. Even if the Bretton Woods system had been designed as a true Gold Standard, with private gold holding and trading permitted, it would never have stood a chance. In practice, since politically motivated governments controlled the Bretton Woods system, the breakdown came in the form of an explosion in the gold price rather than a tight deflation squeeze.

The good news for gold bugs is that the rate of global population increase peaked in 1963 and has now declined to about 1.1% annually. Judging by 1900-25's experience, that is still too high for a Gold Standard to be comfortable. However, the rate of population increase is continuing to decline; on current UN projections, it will by 2045 have fallen below 0.5% annually. At that level, as the 19th century showed, a Gold Standard is perfectly feasible and not excessively deflationary. Hence the young of today can perhaps hope to lead the world back to a Gold Standard in their later years.

The Gold Standard, however, remains anathema to the political class. This not surprising; as the U.S. is currently showing with its repeated bouts of quantitative easing, the seigniorage of money creation is highly profitable to governments strapped for cash owing to unaffordable social welfare programs. Even by 2045, absent a major economic crisis, it is unlikely that elite political opinion will have moved sufficiently to make Gold Standard re-introduction at an official level anything but a long and bitter struggle.

One advantage of commodity-based money over fiat currency, however, is that it does not require official sanction to come into existence. Whereas paper money requires a central bank and a national credit rating behind it to attain credibility (and even with this sometimes fails to do so, as in Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany or Latin America for much of the 20th century), gold-based money can come into existence through private activity.

There is some evidence that this is happening. Austria's Raiffesen Zentralbank now offers its clients gold-based accounts, and other banks are likely to follow. The SWIFT international payments system now allows payment in gold, an essential element in a currency's infrastructure in today's markets. Governments worldwide are competing to depreciate their currencies (or, like the hapless EU, watching their currencies come under fire as the weaker members of their union get into difficulties). At some point, a major exporter with a good competitive position—if you asked me to guess, from China or Germany—could start invoicing its customers in gold.

When that happens, a very important barrier will have been crossed. Once gold-denominated trade paper comes into existence, it will form the nucleus of a short-term money market, in the same way as the eurodollar market for assets and liabilities outside the United States arose in Europe after 1957 or so. Within a few years, gold bonds will be issued—once a company has gold-denominated receivables, it will have a natural hedge for such financing, which will remain cheap in interest terms even after conventional currency interest rates rise. It has happened before, in the formation of the eurodollar and eurobond markets in 1957-65. This time, once gold invoicing happens, the gold money and bond markets are likely to spring up quite quickly.

Banks, even outside Austria and Switzerland, will quickly get up the curve of offering gold-denominated accounts once their corporate customers demand them. They will find that a substantial demand exists at the retail level also. Here, modern technology will be very helpful. An ordinary citizen will be able to use a gold-denominated account for day-to-day transactions by means of a debit card, without the need to carry round expensive sovereigns or double eagles. A payment of $9.50 for a sandwich will be satisfied by the debit card, which will pay dollars (say) to the sandwich bar while debiting the account about 0.007 ounces of gold, using that day's gold price.

The card holder will pay perhaps 1% extra for everything, to cover the cost of the gold/dollar exchange transactions; but on the other hand, since his cash holdings are in gold, he will very likely gain much more than that percentage in dollar terms each month. His wealth will be expressed as so many ounces of gold (or kilos, if he is European), but he will never need to hold physical gold at all—or any other currency, though probably he will get a few dollars from the bank's cash machine each month for expenditures for which his debit card is not accepted.

In this way, both corporate and individual users will be able to move their transactions and holdings to gold, with the banks adapting to meet their needs. The banks will remain regulated by national authorities, and will have to manage their gold assets, liabilities and capital in such a way as to avoid breaching the authorities' leverage ratios, based on the gold price at the end of each reporting period.

If the world's monetary authorities come to their senses quickly enough, adopting Volckerite/Bundesbank monetary policies to restore confidence in their currencies, this private Gold Standard will remain a minor addition to the global financial landscape, perhaps dying away after a few years. If the authorities attempt to suppress the market, it will move underground or offshore, like the eurobond market in its early years—and their suppression attempts will in most countries be rebuked by an angry electorate. If they continue with sloppy monetary policies, then since the gold price will continue rising against all other currencies, gold will come to be seen as the most reliable available store of value and a perfectly acceptable unit of account.

At that point, the private gold standard could come to replace national currencies for most transactions. Governments will attempt to enforce usage of their currencies for tax payments, etc., but they will find themselves at a considerable disadvantage through doing so. They will also lose the vast majority of the seigniorage profit they have enjoyed since paper currencies became universal after World War II. Needless to say, this will cause a financial crisis, and a loss of confidence in the governments' own bonds. Their only remedy at that stage will be to move to gold themselves, cementing the dominance of a global monetary system entirely outside the control of governments and monetary authorities.

Central banks will find themselves unable to meddle with the new monetary system, since they do not control it—only the residual paper currencies will be subject to central bank monetary policy. A true Gold Standard on the basis of free banking will have been created more or less by accident. Banks will find that Basel III leverage requirements are much too generous in a Gold Standard system, so will have to deleverage themselves or face a liquidity crisis and apply for a bailout. Doubtless governments forced to bail out banks would insist that they reorient their business towards the shrinking economic area in which paper money is used—in which case such banks would quickly find themselves irrelevant to the new economic order. Their competitors, seeing the disastrous business- and bonus-destroying results of bailouts, would deleverage to a safe level.

For the world's governments, this would be a disaster. For everyone else, it would be a huge liberation. That is reason enough to encourage the beginnings of the private sector Gold Standard development now, rather than waiting until 2045 in the hope that governments will then establish an official Gold Standard.

As for deflation, don't worry too much about it. The day-to-day debit card-based Gold Standard will initially use very little metallic gold, so will not be particularly deflationary. The money supply will be established by trial and error, as banks that over-leverage and keep inadequate gold reserves discover the perils of fiat money banking without fiat money. In equilibrium, the money supply will be constrained by the physical gold supply, but by that time, we may be approaching 2045.

What Can Be Done...

2010-11-07T09:02:00.000-08:00

By Paul Davidson:

After the shellacking the Democrats and Obama took in this November election, it is clear that the old time religion of classical economics will be coming back into fashion. The result is likely to be further economic disaster.

I am not surprised by the failure of the Obama Administration to win over the American people to a progressive economic program. On pages 13 to 18 of my book THE KEYNES SOLUTION: THE PATH TO GLOBAL ECONOMIC PROSPERITY – ( written in January 2009) -- I compared what I expected of Obama vis-à-vis what Roosevelt did in the first few years of his administration.

I cited a letter written by Keynes and published in December 1933 in the New York Times where Keynes warned the president that there were two goals -- Recovery and overdue social Reforms. But Keynes warned if one goes for the social reforms before full economic recovery (full employment) was achieved, then any reforms "will upset the confidence of business... And it will confuse thought ". Instead Keynes recommended just concentrate on recovery. Once the president succeeds at achieving that goal, then reforms will come much more easily!

I suggested that if Obama followed the “jump start” advice of his economic advisors for a small “stimulus” program just to get the private economy turned around , then the nation would not get the full recovery we needed and all reform as well as full recovery will be jeopardized.
Given the politics of austerity, we face maybe a decade of economic disaster. Progressive heterodox economists must get out in front with a Keynes-style of economic thinking – for Keynes’s analytical framework is the only complete available one that is not just a variant of classical theory. Keynes theory of liquidity can deal with full employment recovery, international trade imbalances, policies to prevent inflation and deflation, and an understanding of the role of financial markets in a money using entrepreneurial economy. – what Soros calls a reflexivity economy.

It is necessary to immediately put forth a consistent plan for not only the domestic economy but also for the international payments system to end the huge trade imbalances that have occurred --Mr. Geithner's call for devaluing the dollar relative to the Chinese yuan will not do it.
Nor will relying on some Old or New Keynesian variants of classical economics such as Stiglitz's assymetric information or some other MIT or Harvard New Keynesianism --since all these models assume that the economic system is a classical system except for some ad hoc restraint on the flexiblity of prices or constraint on obtaining complete information about a future predetermined by today's market fundamental. In the long run all these mainstream "Keynesian" models will provide a full employment solution when fixities are removed and full information preceived. It is only these ad hoc constraints that prevent short run optimal results -- theerfore the implication of these mainstream models is get government out of the way and the market, in the long run, will prove to be optimal!

My book THE KEYNES SOLUTION provides a complete alternative program to the various classical models that is going to dominate Washington in the next few years – as Obama tries to compromise with the conservatives such as Paul Ryan and Tea Party people like Rand Paul.

The American people are being interpreted as saying no more deficits—but what they really want back is prosperity and jobs for all who are willing to work. And if we can show them why these goals require governemnt deficits to get to prosperity , they will accept that. We have to get into the public forum the kind of progressive program that is in the Roosevelt tradition and currently can be an economic foundation to provide a good economic future for years to come.

Until we can provide a single consistent program for economic prosperity, all the other goals of progressive thinkers will remain in the dustbin!! The conservatives and their classical theory will dominate, even though they are wrong – because, as they say in politics, “You can not beat Somebody with Nobody”.

The only body of economic thinking available to take on, and beat, classical thinking, is Keynes’s original analytical foundation – and not the Keynesianism of Samuelson, or the New Keynesianism of Stiglitz and other MIT and Harvard graduates.

And remember that the original Keynes analysis implied a nonergodic stochastic process (Keynes called “uncertainty”) is fully compatible with the reflexivity analysis put forth by George Soros. It is when people fear uncertainty that they demand liquidity rather than goods and services. And given all the cash bankers and businesses are sitting on, can anyone doubt the problem is one of too much uncertainty and private demands for liquidity -with the resulting lack of aggregate demand for goods and services?

Paul

Paul Davidson
Editor, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics
author: THE KEYNES SOLUTION: THE PATH TO GLOBAL ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
Bernard Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis
21 Stratford Drive E. Unit D
Boynton Beach, Florida 33436
phone and fax number: (561)369-1951
email: pdavidson@utk.edu
http://econ.bus.utk.edu/davidson.html
Manuscripts for Journal of Post Keynesian Economics can be submitted electronically
to pdavidson@mesharpe.com

The Tri-Polar Intelligence of Pure Thought…

2010-09-13T14:51:00.000-07:00

"Wisdom is an ocean of visions, poured into a dewdrop, of a single ultimate vision...."

Ever look deep into the pure mind__I mean really deep, to where you can answer the questions about how thought thinks about pure thought…? Follow me to a zone you may never have been before__it won’t hurt, but it may surprise. Most think they know their own minds quite well, but do they really?__I think you’ll see for yourself, there’s much more to pure thought than you’ve so far realized…

Simply take the word intelligence, and ask yourself, ‘What is the intelligence of intelligence…?’ This is that ancient question Socrates first posed millennia ago, with a bit of a twist, as he asked, ‘What is the wisdom of wisdom?’ and ‘What is the science of science?’__but, these same thought-word relations lead us to the same destination. It’s also been asked by others as, ‘What’s the cognition of the cognition?’ and ‘What’s the concept of the concept?’ and ‘What’s the context of the context?’ and you could also ask; ‘What’s the feeling of the feeling…?’ These questions may seem strange to you at first, but when it’s explained__you’ll easily see the importance of such deep investigations of the mind’s purest deep states of thinking. Most likely, you all do think like this now__it’s just you’ve never given it the detail of contemplation to realize it…

Think about it__when one asks themselves’ any one of these single entity questions, one’s thoughts are centered strictly on the thought of thinking about thought itself. This is the mode of modal thought, modal logic, modal intelligence or modal wisdom, per se__and no different than thinking about the moods of the mind’s thinking about pure thinking… It’s really the easiest idea in the world to accomplish, it’s just most never think about the mood of their being, upon how such controls their thoughts and actions__but, the realization can be the most profound change in a person’s contemplations about themselves, the world and their actions toward self, others and the world…

If one starts out thinking in the mood of self-referential thinking, or experiential intelligence__one’s mood or modal thought is more childhood-soul to super-consciousness feelings' based__a most personal thought stance… If one starts out thinking in the mood of non-self-referential thinking, or operational intelligence of others’ and the world’s ideas__one’s mood or modal thought is more of the intellect to the entire systems’ architectures of all the world’s many systems__a most non-personal stance, yet closely related to the over-soul of global sight… There’s still one more mood or modal thought to contemplate__and that’s one’s modal actionable intelligence, or one’s will to act upon one’s experiential wisdom state, in an attempt to move pieces of such wisdom to one’s operational knowledge state__as it’s really how we all do achieve our best moments in life, that truly satisfy us… For when we accomplish, through our self-knowing actionable intelligence of personal will, to discover totally new ideas and links from our experiential intelligence, to our operational knowledge and action states of mind__we feel we can really set the world afire…

So, next time you’re thinking about thinking about something__first check the mood of the state of mind, you are truly thinking from__and I promise you, that by knowing the mood of your thinking state, is by far the most important progress one can ever accomplish in the evolution of the mind states advancement… It will also give you the chance to really coordinate any presentation state you may choose, from your most personal feelings, thoughts and actions, to the most complex of intellectual contemplations and actions. Along the way of thinking about thinking, you may realize how much the world has lost this art of pure contemplative thought__and how much we all really need to re-instate it__to communicate effectively__as it relaxes the mind more than anything else, to know one has the ability to choose the mood of the conversations and actions one is involved in__purely at the will of knowing one can…

All it requires is to state to another the mode of the thought talked about, whether experiential intelligence, operational intelligence or actionable intelligence__This can also be phrased as experiential wisdom, operational knowledge and knowing intelligent actions__and just simply notify another of the mood change… Many do this without knowing they do it, but to be able to do it knowingly is of great comfort to one’s being, and self-satisfaction…

Therefore; ‘Wisdom is the actionable intelligence capacity, to knowingly move percepts and concepts of experiential wisdom, into the greater world of operational knowledge__to help improve the function and form of our world at large…’

Btw, when anyone actually does see wisdom, even small pieces of it, it’s the most humbling experience in the world, as it’s so huge compared to any one of us__it’s truly overwhelming…

Paul Davidson Joined the Advisory Board of the Institute for New Economic Thinking...

2010-08-24T08:29:00.001-07:00

New York, NY, August 24, 2010 – The Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) has appointed Paul Davidson, Editor of the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics and Holly Chair of Excellence Professor Emeritus, University of Tennessee, to its advisory board. Paul Davidson, is the 31st distinguished individual to join INET’s Advisory Board, including five Nobel Prize winners.

Professor Paul Davidson is currently a Senior Fellow at the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, The New School. He has taught at number of prestigious institutions including: University of Pennsylvania, Rutgers University, and Bristol University (UK). Davidson served as the Assistant Director of the Economic Division of the Continental Oil Company and has testified before 20 congressional committees over the years on various economic questions. He has authored co-authored or edited 22 books, including: The Keynes Solution: The Path to Global Economic Prosperity, Economics For A Civilized Society (co-author), Financial Markets, Money and the Real World, and Post Keynesian /macroeconomic Theory: A Foundation For Successful Economic Policies For the Twenty-first Century.

“I share the Institute’s commitment to education, open dialogue, and the support of the next generation in effecting change,” commented Paul Davidson. “I am dedicated to advancing the Institute’s vital initiatives and honored to join its distinguished Advisory Board.”

“As a distinguished educator and champion of Keynesian Economics, Paul Davidson is a invaluable addition to the INET community that held its inaugural conference at King’s College, University Cambridge, where Keynes himself debated economic theory and instigated reform,” commented Dr. Robert Johnson, Executive Director of INET. “His presence and counsel will undoubtedly have an important impact on the Institute and its work.”

About the Institute for New Economic Thinking:
Launched in October 2009 with a $50 million pledge from George Soros, the Institute for New Economic Thinking promotes changes in economic theory and practice through conferences, grants and education initiatives. The Institute embraces the professional responsibility to think beyond the inadequate methods and models of the world’s financial infrastructures and will support the creation of new paradigms in the understanding of economic processes. For more information please visit http://www.ineteconomics.org/
----# # #--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Davidson
Editor, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics
author: THE KEYNES SOLUTION: THE PATH TO GLOBAL ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
Bernard Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis
66 Country Club Drive
Monroe Township, New Jersey 08831
email: pdavidson@utk.edu
Paul Davidson

The Triadic Analytic Esthetic Geometry of Our Universal Emotions of Genericity's SimplicityDimensionality and ProportionalityFrom the Gentile, to

2010-08-24T08:18:00.000-07:00

(Someone elsewhere on the web mentioned this post, so I'm re-posting...)

"The world is divided into men who have wit and no religion and men who have religion and no wit. " Avicenna
"As to the mental essence, we find it in infants devoid of every mental form." Avicenna
"At night I would return home, set out a lamp before me, and devote myself to reading and writing. Whenever sleep overcame me or I became conscious of weakening, I would turn aside to drink a cup of wine, so that my strength would return to me. Then I would return to reading. And whenever sleep seized me I would see those very problems in my dream; and many questions became clear to me in my sleep. I continued in this until all of the sciences were deeply rooted within me and I understood them as is humanly possible. Everything which I knew at the time is just as I know it now; I have not added anything to it to this day. Thus I mastered the logical, natural, and mathematical sciences, and I had now reached the science." Avicenna
"The knowledge of anything, since all things have causes, is not acquired or complete unless it is known by its causes." Avicenna

The Triadic Analytic Esthetic Geometry of Our Universal Emotions of Genericity's Simplicity__Dimensionality and Proportionality__From the Gentile, to the Projective, to the Factual...

Avicenna made it part way there... Kant made it a bit further... Peirce made it the furthest... We must finish the journey of the triadic whole__subjective/objective/ajective, or the, monojective/bijective/trijective minds' final journey...

Emotions, our most important essence, are much simpler than most have thought them to be__iff looked at, thoroughly, from and with the esthetic, analytic-synthetic a priori__The true triadic self...

Emotions are the primary source of all the energies of our complete mind’s functioning, whether our animal fight or flight instincts, our most aesthetic emotions of compassion and empathy, or our higher emotional foundations under our intellectual and logical states of mind. We’re talking about our primary energy states in all these categories of choices of personalities, attitudes or medium to higher states of mind potentialities. Many have stated for centuries that this metaphysical state of primary energies could not be analyzed__But I see this, so far non-conceptual state of mind, as being analyzable iff we simply see its primary brain state function, before we apply content to it, as being fully possible of analyzability.

When the primary brain state is looked at, which would be our perceptions’ essence agents’ tools, whether passion, pain, reason, compassion, empathy, love, judgment or whatever other state may be involved, at the time of our action’s choices__is subject to nothing more than the use of the powers of this very primary energy. And when we are talking about any human energy source, we are simply talking about its capacity for good or bad, happiness or sadness, helping or hurting, loving or hating, on and on, yet it has and implies parameters of these mentioned choices and actions__which would be the proportionalities of energies applied to the many different situations we encounter. Just as a simple example; We may use our gentlest of emotional states of love toward another, with the least proportion of energy applied to the person our love is projected toward, even though this may take a tremendous amount of energy to control our will’s involuntary action, at the time__while at other times this state of low intensity energy may be a naturally flowing symmetry, often granted by what's outside our personal control of energy flows__The purely natural metaphysical flows. It’s still understandable as a low proportionality of energy applied.

On the other hand, we may want to excite another couple to a certain action for the day’s activities, and we’d apply a large proportion of energy, with our personality and attitude, to entice that particular couple to be enthused to bid our wishes, as we may have planned a very exciting outing, for everyone to enjoy, as I’ve often done, when bored of the atmosphere of the local area I may have been in. All I’m showing is the simple proportional emotional energy use we may have all applied at differing times in our lives. This would mean our basic epistemic agents of perception, as I see all essence agents, as being housed in perception, are actually acting through a geometric process of distributing energy to our willed actions proportionately differing at differing times and circumstances. Of course, this is just a simple explanation, but many are un-aware of the basic mechanics of pure emotional energy, and I think it’s very important to see all the varied dimensions of actions the emotional mind is actually capable of.

When one realizes it's simple energy choices, of actions’ choices, to control our emotions, we need never be trapped in our boredoms, excess desires or greed, because the free-knowledge-choices of actions is much more fun, than all the fulfillments of possessions could ever accomplish. A pure freedom of our mind’s actions’ choices, knowingly, is the most fulfilling of the spirit's possibilities__and is available to anyone who is shown this simple path__”Put the body in action/motion and the mind will follow.” It is no more complex than this simple statement. There’s no amount of possessions or money in the world, that can surpass the mind’s knowledge of its own freedom’s possibilities of free-will actions’ Possibilia. I’ve seen so many relationships go sour for the simple reason of not realizing the power of empowering the body’s actions, to have the minds follow, it's almost uncountable__and for no other reason than not knowing__The body controls the mind’s states of happiness__Do something__Anything__You’ll like it...

I’ve only offered a simple mind map of happiness’s possible actions, but imo, this is the fundamental state of The Triadic Analytic Esthetic Geometry of Our Universal Emotions of Genericity's Simplicity__Dimensionality and Proportionality__From the Gentile, to the Projective, to the Factual...

Making Dollars and Sense of the U.S Government Debt...

2010-08-02T18:47:00.000-07:00

Paul Davidson

Abstract: This paper explains why, given Keynes’s General Theory, worries over the size of the government’s national debt per se is foolish. It is more important to educate politicians and the public that government fiscal policy should be designed to make sure that aggregate market demand will produce sufficient profits so that entrepreneurs will hire all domestic workers willing and able to work. Empirical evidence is provided to demonstrate the correctness of this concept of fiscal policy of the balancing wheel for full employment effective demand. Key words: deficits, national debt.

No economic topic encourages more political demagoguery than the
“unsustainable” national deficits that face the Obama administration as
it tries to extricate the economy from this Great Recession that began
in 2007. Even President Obama has appointed a commission to develop
a plan to assure a reduction in future deficits by lowering government
expenditures or raising taxes.

A sage once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned
to repeat its errors.” So let us review the past history of the national debt
to make sure we avoid its errors and repeat its successes.

Is the national debt too large? In 1790, the newly founded U.S. government
assumed the debts that had been incurred during the Revolutionary
War. Thus, from the very beginning, the U.S. national debt was
approximately $75 million. In 1835, President Jackson reduced the debt
to close to a zero balance. By 1837, however, the economy went into a
steep recession that lasted approximately six years and the national debt
increased dramatically. Since then, the U.S. government has always had
a significant outstanding debt.

During World War I, the national debt increased substantially from approximately
$6 billion in 1916 to over $27 billion in 1919. The prosperous
decade of the “roaring twenties” saw a decline in the national debt
as tax receipts exceeded government spending. By 1929, the total debt
had been reduced to $16.9 billion. This 1920s experience indicates that
when the private sector is spending sufficiently to buy all the products
that industry can produce in a fully employed economy, then there is no
need for the government to deficit spend merely to maintain a prosperous
economy. The 1920s prosperity, however, was partly the result of
significant bubbles in the stock market and in real estate. (Shades of the
dot.com bubble of the 1990s and the housing bubble of early 2000s.)
In 1929, private spending suddenly slowed causing a devastating drop
in business profits. Unemployment rose rapidly as the United States
entered the Great Depression. Tax revenues fell from $4 billion in 1930
to less than $2 billion in 1932. When Roosevelt took office in 1933, the
national debt was almost $20 billion; a sum equal to 20 percent of the
U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).

During its first term, the Roosevelt administration ran large annual
deficits between 2 and 5 percent of GDP. By 1936, the national debt had
increased to $33.7 billion or approximately 40 percent of GDP. Many
“experts” of that era said disaster awaited the nation if the government
continued to deficit spend and thereby burden future generations with this
huge debt. Accordingly, as a part of his reelection campaign, Roosevelt’s
fiscal year 1937 budget submitted to Congress in 1936 cut government
spending dramatically. As a result, in 1937, the economy fell into a steep
recession. Tax revenues declined and the national debt increased to $37
billion. The government resumed significant deficit spending in 1938
and the economy quickly recovered. By 1940, the economy had grown
substantially while the national debt rose to $43 billion.

When the United States entered the war in 1941, the fear of deficits and
the size of the national debt were forgotten. The important thing was to
defeat the enemy. In the war years from 1941 to 1945, the GDP doubled
while the national debt increased by more than 500 percent as Roosevelt
financed much of the war expenditures by government borrowing. By the
end of the war in 1945, the national debt had increased to $258 billion
and was equal to approximately 120 percent of GDP.

Rather than bankrupting the nation, this large growth in the national
debt promoted a prosperous economy. By 1946, the average American
household was living much better economically than in the prewar
days. Moreover, the children of that Depression–World War II generation
were not burdened by having to pay off what then was considered
a huge national debt. Instead, for the next quarter century, the economy
continued on a path of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity
with the Eisenhower administration launching the biggest public works
project—the interstate highway system—and the Kennedy–Johnson
administration spending large sums on sending a man to the moon and
the escalating Vietnam War. At the same time, the inequality in the distribution
of income was significantly narrowed. It was the golden age
of economic development for the United States as the rich grew richer
while the poor gained even more in a rapidly rising level of income that
created a large American middle class.

As a child of the Depression and a young teenager during the World
War II, I have never felt burdened by the huge government deficits that
accrued due to government spending during the Great Depression and
the war that followed. The legacy that the Great Generation who were
adults during the depression and the war left to their children was an
economy of abundance and prosperity. I inherited an economy that made
finding a good job easy for me and all of my cohorts and provided excellent
opportunities to improve our living standards. If this is burdening
children and grandchildren, I hope the current generation can create such
a “burden” for their progeny.

The moral of this history of the national debt and the economy during
the Great Depression and World War II is that we have nothing to fear
about running big government deficits when, during a recession with
significant unemployment, the federal government is the only spender
that can take the responsibility to sufficiently increase the market demand
for the products of our industries and thereby maintain a profitable entrepreneurial
system. For government to spend less in the hopes of keeping
down the size of the national debt will cause market demand to remain
slack, thereby impoverishing both our business firms and our workers.

The idea that capitalism works best when spenders cause healthy growth
in market demands and thereby generate profits and jobs for the community
was the basic message of Keynes theory.

This was clearly demonstrated when government spending increased
during the years 1933–36 and 1938–45. When Roosevelt cut spending
in 1937, the sharp recession showed that at that stage of recovery, no
other spenders were willing or able to take over from government the
role of generator of market demand and profits for American businesses.

Had Roosevelt, in 1938, continued on the path of keeping government
spending in check in order not to increase the total national debt, the
result would have been to propagate the poorly performing economy
of 1937. When the war broke out and no further thought was given to
the size of the national debt, government spending quickly pushed the
economy to a profitable full employment status. Keynes’s ideas that the
role of government fiscal policy was to make sure that the total demand
for goods and services provided profit opportunities to encourage business
firms to hire all workers who wanted a job was validated by this
historical record.

Business firms will hire more workers only when they expect the market
demand for their products is increasing. Today, who are these buyers who
will be willing to buy significantly more products from factories located
in the United States in order to end this Great Recession? Clearly households
suffering from high unemployment, decreasing market values for
their homes, large credit card debt, and shrinking pension funds are not
likely to rush to buy significant more goods and services. Entrepreneurs
with existing excess facilities and facing declining or at most not rapidly
rising market demands are unlikely to invest significantly in new plant and
equipment. Moreover, foreigners such as China with its large savings of
U.S. dollar earnings appears unlikely to spend more dollars to buy more
U.S.‑produced goods. With falling property and sales tax revenues, local
and state governments such as California are cutting spending on public
services and reducing purchases from domestically located firms. Only
the Federal government can afford to buy significant additional products
to stimulate market demand for American products.

Just as we expect the Federal government to spend whatever is necessary
to protect us from foreign enemies during a war, we should also
expect the government to spend whatever is necessary to protect us
from the economic terrorism of a great recession. The public must be
educated to understand that a civilized society is one that assures both
domestic workers and enterprises prosper and that the intelligent use of
government fiscal policy can assure that total market demand is always
sufficient to generate domestic profits large enough to create a fully
employed economy.

Some argue that tax revenues must finance all government spending
so that the federal budget is always balanced without deficits, or at least
annual deficits do not increase the debt-to-GDP ratio. As history shows,
however, even during World War II when America was attacked by foreign
nations (remember Pearl Harbor?) the U.S. government did not finance
the entire defense of this nation by raising taxes. Instead, during the war
years, deficits expanded dramatically while no one worried (correctly)
about burdening future generations with debt.

If wars are not sufficient (or necessary) reasons to raise taxes or cut
government spending sufficiently to balance the budget while protecting
the nation, then why should defending the nation against serious economic
threats require a balanced budget or a lower deficit? Our politicians and
the public must be educated to understand that when total demand for
domestically produced goods is low so that recession and depression
threaten, then government must deficit spend as much as necessary to
encourage domestic entrepreneurs to hire all American workers who
are willing and able to work. If, on the other hand, market demand for
domestically produced goods and services exceed America’s full employment
productive capacity, then government must increase taxes and
reduce spending in order to reduce aggregate demand to a level that can
be met by a fully employed labor force.

When the public and politicians recognize that a primary function of
government fiscal policy is to act as a balancing wheel for aggregate
demand to be sufficient to encourage America’s entrepreneurs to create
jobs for all our workers, we will have developed the political will to
develop a perpetual prosperous American civilized society.
At that point of time, our next task will be to develop an international
financial and payments system that will provide for global full employment
and prosperity.

State-owned enterprises in China: How big are they...?

2010-07-15T14:11:00.000-07:00

by Gao Xu...

In China's industrial sector, the shrinking share of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) is evident. This is due in part to the stronger growth of non-government-owned enterprises.

When communicating with my friends outside China, their misconception of Chinese State-Owned Enterprises (SOE) always surprises me. It seems that although Chinese SOEs play a major role in the Chinese economy, they continue to remain mysterious to most outsiders. For some people – even some long-time observers of China – Chinese SOEs are best described as dying dinosaurs that continuously absorb resources from the economy but produce little economic value. However, this impression is far from the case in nowadays.

That’s why I feel obliged to write something about the reality of this myth. In this blog post and the following ones, I’ll try to profile Chinese SOEs with data mainly from industrial sector, addressing questions regarding their size, profitability, leverage, and so on, hopefully presenting a clear picture to readers.

Today, I will tackle the question of how big are Chinese SOEs. This question can be rephrased in two different ways. First, how big are Chinese SOEs as a whole in the Chinese economy? Second, how big are individual SOEs compared with non-SOEs? Starting with the former question:

What is the share of SOEs as a whole in the Chinese economy? It depends on the criteria one chooses. This share is really negligible in terms of the enterprise number, but quite substantial in terms of assets.

The Second National Economic Census conducted in 2008 reveals that of all the 208 trillion RMB total assets of the secondary and tertiary sectors (industrial and service sectors), 63 trillion – or 30 percent of total – was held by SOEs. (SOEs here correspond to state sole funded corporations and enterprises with the state as the biggest share holder.) Meanwhile, in terms of enterprise number, there were 154,000 SOEs at the end of 2008, only accounting for 3.1 percent of the total enterprise number. Hence, the big picture is clear: SOEs control a substantial part of total enterprise assets in China despite the fact that their total number is marginal. As a corollary of this observation it follows that the average size of SOEs is much bigger than that of non-SOEs. This is indeed the case. In terms of average assets, SOEs are equal to 13.4 times of non-SOEs.

To analyze the developments, we now turn to the industrial enterprise survey dataset. As the National Economic Census is conducted once in 5 years, it is hard to study the dynamics with only the census data. Fortunately, there is another dataset that continuously dates back to 1999 readily available to us – the industrial enterprise survey data. This dataset is constructed and released by China’s National Statistical Bureau, covering all SOEs and other enterprises with annual sales larger than 5 million RMB in the industrial sectors. (Note: under the current foreign exchange rate, US$1 equals 6.8 RMB.) As non-state-owned small industrial firms (annual sales smaller than 5 million RMB) are excluded from the survey, this is a biased sample. However, enterprises covered by the survey in total account for almost 90 percent of total industrial value-added, suggesting this dataset is good enough to give a big picture of the overall developments.

The industrial survey data corroborates the Economic Census. In Figure 1, the dark blue line shows the share of SOEs number in total surveyed industrial enterprises, juxtaposed with the asset share shown by light blue line. At the end of 2008, SOEs only accounted for 4.8 percent of total enterprise numbers but controlled 43.8 percent of total assets owned by surveyed firms. Again, the data suggests that the average size of SOEs was much bigger than that of non-SOEs (15.5 times to be specific).

The shrinking share of SOEs in the industrial sector is evident in figure 1. This is on one hand due to the stronger growth of non-SOEs, and on the other hand, with less quantitative significance, reflects the fact that more non-SOEs that used to be excluded from the survey have crossed the 5 million RMB sales threshold and thereby entered into the sample. Once one takes into account the fact that the sample covers 90 percent of the industrial sector, or 39 percent of the national economy, the diminishing SOE share in the sample clearly points to a bigger role played by the non-SOEs in the Chinese economy.

It is worthwhile to note that the decline in the share of SOEs is much bigger than that in the share of SOE assets. Since 1999, the share of SOEs has declined from 37 percent to less than 5 percent in terms of numbers, and from 68 percent to 44 percent in terms of assets. This is to a large extent a result of the SOE reform – specifically the “grasping the big, letting go of the small” strategy – carried out in the past decade. Since the reform started in late 1990s, most small SOEs have been privatized or filed bankruptcy to lessen the burden of the government, while larger ones have been subsidized (directly or implicitly) and/or merged to hopefully create stronger firms controlling the commanding high of the national economy. This reform strategy is a big success in terms of creating large SOEs. As what is shown in figure 2 by the dark blue line, the average asset size of industrial SOEs increased from 134 million RMB in 1999 to 923 million in 2008, expanding by 589 percent in 9 years. Meanwhile, the average assets of non-SOEs only moderately increased from 36 million to 60 million, up by a dwarfed 67 percent.

With all these evidences in hand, we can now answer the question raised before: How big are Chinese SOEs? Even though their share in the economy continued to decline in the past decade, SOEs still make up a substantial part of the national economy – roughly controlling 30 percent of the total secondary and tertiary assets, or over 50 percent of total industrial assets. The average size of SOEs is much bigger than their non-SOE peers, with average assets of the former equaling over 13 times of the latter.

Now we know that Chinese SOEs have a relatively bigger average asset size, while they continue to account for a substantial part of the national economy. Naturally, one would ask what performances of these big SOEs are. This will be the topic of my next blog post – Chinese SOEs: how profitable are they?

Explanation of The Triadic Shadow Logic, Used In The Graphic…

2010-06-14T10:25:00.001-07:00

What I mean by 'fully considered limits', is to collect all the systems' data, and personal data, in the entire world, at a generally applicable enough logical level for mathematical soundness, not perfection, but at the fair enough probability level of general accuracy beyond doubt__then process the numbers representing this data into real 'Universal Knowledge' of our world, to chart a proper future course__toward our best ideals and orders of liberty for all...

Such data if collected, which has not been yet, can be computer processed into a sound 'Universal Knowledge' of human actions, even projected by sound modeling, out into the future, of course with less accuracy, the further projected into the future, and that's why I'd always suggested 'Sliding Time-Scaled Laws', that are dynamic and capable of changing as new numbers are crunched. Of course some would be repelled by math guiding their futures, but 'Mathematical Futures' are better than 'War Futures'__which we all know we are going to get, if we keep pursuing the non-past and non-future-knowledge route...

These solutions are possible with computers, responsibility and effort...

Here's the military model of processing such massive informations: The same can be used for peaceful purposes...

Explanation of The Triadic Shadow Logic, Used In Above Graphic…

Here’s a recent survey of my deepest thoughts about creative hypothesis logic, known as ‘Abduction’:

Most accept psychology as a valid study of humanity's conditions__I do not. To me psychology is a regress of scientific philosophical logic's long march to find the full scientific truth, of itself and the scientific psychology of the feelings. The trouble all through-out almost all the psychological literature is the simple word uses of; may, suppose, maybe, if and not iff, probably and not probability, possibly and not possibility, non-necessity and not necessity, etc., which forms most of psychology's and sociology's main linguistic texts__and involves far too much conjecture and hear-say. This is far too loose a language for any science to exist in, therefore, even though I also entertain this area of speech, when it's not too blatantly negative against science__I only accept a logic that does not accept psychology proper into its realm__except to talk about the science of psychology, as per my attempts to use Esthetics__The sceince of motives, aims and goals__long established since the Greeks. The reason everything may seem so confusing at times, is the fact, I often am more or less crossing my own borders of linguistic and system uses, to even begin to talk to those who are, imo, far too psychological__which causes problems because I'm always trying to bring those conversations, in the science threads or ideas, back to science's accepted logical norms. That's the war you may sometimes see... Until I can build better bridges between what I knowingly reject, and what I knowingly accept__psychology vs. logic__I am bound to be trapped in the in-betweens of bad communications at times, and there's nothing I can do about that, except self-evolve the bridges__Nature's got control of that__They don't fully exist yet__referred to as the Einstein-Gap, or the J. Herbrand-Gap__The very wise mathematician Gode'l followed__but he died mountain climbing, a year or so before Godel published his famous papers, mainly from Herbrand's papers and letters to Gode'l. Here was one of the real true geniuses of history, hardly anyone even knows existed...

As to my own ideas, just this morning I awoke to the deep pre-suppositional reasoning we all use, knowingly or unknowingly. It's the realization of how 'inductive logic' actually functions, deep in all our pre-thinking processes, we may or may not be fully aware of. That's why I've nick-named it 'Shadow Logic', which is really the triadic logic process C.S. Peirce tried to awake the world to, over 100 years ago. He named it 'Abduction’(published earlier at my thread, with the military uses shown by graph above), and the most famous living philosopher, mathematician, logician__a lifelong scholar of Peirce__J. Hintikka(professor at Boston U., from Finland)__stated; "The greatest goal the modern world has to achieve, is to fully understand abduction." This is the 'shadow logic' I speak of. Put simply__'Abductions are modal inductions, creating deductions, for models, hypotheses, and facts'. In a common language, this would be; 'The thinking taking place in the very backgrounds of all our brains(shadow logic_semi-conscious and non-conscious states, i.e., barely visible if we fully reflect) is a basic triadic+ thought process, of all the infinite constant inflow of information, from all external and internal memory, sensory, imagination, intuition and feelings sources, that is naturally being processed by the triadic modal processes of possibility, probability and necessity__from this infinite creative source, into its finite deductions, we all use in fully-conscious thoughts, ideas, aims and actions, to work up all our models of reality, hypotheses about reality, and all our final beliefs into facts, as knowledge and or even creative wisdom, which is the state of necessity, we all seek__knowingly or unknowingly...

Finally in summing this short piece__Imo, this is the difference between psychologists, sociologists and I, myself… They use a psychology and sociology I reject as far too inaccurate, and I use a logic I'm further trying to define, so it can do the science of both psychology and logic. That's a battleground, even within me__one which must be played out for discovery purposes__the public be damned, at times... Though, I am being able to see between the two opposed schools of thought better__they still are governed by opposite mental state laws, just as Freud, Jung and Husserl long ago stated__as did Peirce__One being too subjective to the other's objectivity of subjectivity...

This may not be too informative, but it's too new to me to be any better__yet...

The Non-Existent Hand...

2010-05-22T09:28:00.000-07:00

My letter on the Stiglitz review of Robert Skidelsky's "Keynes: The Return of The Master" is printed in the May 27, 2010 issue of the London Review of Books. Paul Davidson

It reads as follows:(Sent to me by Paul Davidson__The economist we need to solve the present world crisis...)

The Non-Existent Hand...

Joseph Stiglitz criticises Robert Skidelsky, Keynes’s biographer, for not understanding Keynes’s theory, but in doing so reveals his own imperfect understanding (LRB, 22 April). The basis of his complaint is Skidelsky’s distinction between risk and uncertainty. Risk, Skidelsky explains, exists when the future can be predicted on the basis of currently existing information (e.g. probability distributions calculated from existing market data); uncertainty exists when no reliable information exists today about the future outcomes of current decisions, because the economic future can be created by decisions taken today. According to Stiglitz, this is a distinction without a difference, and ‘little insight’ into the causes of the Great Recession is gained from Skidelsky’s emphasis on uncertainty as opposed to risk.

But this is not what Keynes believed. The classical economics of Keynes’s time presumed that today’s economic decision-makers have reliable information regarding all future outcomes. I have labelled this the ‘ergodic axiom’. By contrast, Keynes argued that ‘unfortunate collisions’ occurred because the economic future was very uncertain. ‘By very uncertain,’ he wrote, ‘I do not mean the same thing as “very improbable”.’ No reliable information existed today for providing a reliable forecast of future outcomes.

This is the very proposition that Stiglitz denies. All that is needed to provide better insight into the workings of the market, he thinks, is ‘small and obviously reasonable change in assumptions’; for example, that reliable information about the future does exist but that different individuals have access to different information. The only necessary policy is ‘transparency’: to make complete information about the future available to all. The classical ergodic axiom is correct, provided one accepts that not everyone has access to all the information that exists.

For Keynes the inability of firms and households to ‘know’ the economic future is essential to understanding why financial crashes occur in an economy that uses money and money contracts to organise transactions. Firms and households use money contracts to gain some control over their cash inflows and outflows as they venture into the uncertain future. Liquidity in such an economy implies the ability to meet all money contractual obligations when they fall due. The role of financial markets is to assure holders of financial assets that are traded on orderly markets that they can readily convert these liquid assets into cash whenever additional funds are needed to meet a contractual cash outflow commitment. In Keynes’s analysis, the sudden drying up of liquidity in financial markets, occasioned by sudden drops of confidence, explains why ‘unfortunate collisions’ occur – and have occurred more than a hundred times in the last 30 years, according to Stiglitz.

By contrast, Stiglitz implicitly accepts the orthodox view that all contracts are made in real terms, as if the economy were a barter economy. Consequently people’s need for liquidity is irrelevant. Stiglitz indicates that he and Bruce Greenwald have explained that financial markets fail ‘because contracts are not appropriately indexed’, i.e., contracts in our economy are denominated in money terms rather than ‘real’ terms. He suggests that if only such contracts were made in real, rather than monetary, terms we would not suffer the ‘unfortunate collisions’ of economic crisis. If only we lived in a classical world, where contracts would be denominated in real terms! But in a money-using economy, this is impossible.

Paul Davidson
Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, New York

The Higher Nation-State of Law…

2010-05-09T11:10:00.000-07:00

This post is just going to be a jumble of ideas I’m throwing out, which all relate in my mind to evolving the world through a new systems’ logic, to a new universally law structured state. I’m always shooting for the same basic better ordered state of liberty, achieved by what I’ve elsewhere stated as a subtraction from the universals__I believe I published it elsewhere as Kant’s metaphysics of ethics, where he actually started with the universal continuum, associated it as the grand equilibrium, for this particular purpose, and subtracted the equal universal rights of individuals and nations, to achieve a proper state of liberty__governed by the laws of mathematical fairness… Kant’s ideas just happen to be very reasonable for any age, and that alone is why Kant is so important, in my mind__He, and he alone, seems to have related the laws of liberty so closely aligned with arithmetic… He also related the laws of thought closely aligned with arithmetic, and quantum mechanics, long before anyone even had any idea about the quantum continuum__with his continuum mind space, actually shaping our concepts, objects and ideas… Now, if that isn’t quantum state space acting on the photonic structure of concepts, I don’t know what is…

Where natural law verses the higher self of the state, which can only truly be realized by the realities of the Nuremberg Trials, as this is really the first time and place where nations realized their man-made law structures lacked the ability to judge states against states, that new universally applicable laws were first created… This required applying the intellect of mans law system, to draw upon the natural law system of nature, represented by the universality that only Kant had really written about. Of course secular society being so against theistic approaches of the past, to establish the higher ground of judgment required of a state to judge another, this left the field blank, until someone realized one could draw from the natural universality of reality, or the universal continuum, as Kant had named it, that new codes of ethics and laws for international war crimes trials could take shape, to evolve the world to the higher international standards required, by the times. So, some of these old philosophers really do have some use after all, when all is investigated and known__believe it or not…

My point here being that, the many seeming contradictory truths of man’s laws, and nature’s higher universal laws, are more than just the usual chimera many have so long thought… If we truly try to thoroughly understand this simple conceptual difference between the existing law systems, that so seem to be destroying the better order of the world today, and the much higher possibilities of nature’s universal law systems’ abilities, to greatly improve the global order of present conditions__we have much more to look forward to than many at present may realize… The re-arrangement of the planet’s necessary law changes is not so difficult to see, when one realizes it at such a simple conceptual level as introduced at the Nuremberg Trials, and simply being copied from a treatise on ‘The Metaphysics of Ethics’, some two hundred years before__and being based on such a simple arithmetic as subtracting equal universal rights for you and your state, and equal universal rights for me and my state__while keeping all satisfied with the results based on such a simple mathematical fairness__How could anyone complain…? These are also the simple arithmetic methods employed by many of America’s founding fathers__to achieve her initial fairness… Don’t you really think it’s about time we started re-copying some of these very wise men of history, instead of blindly following our present pin-headed leaders…???

Why are we on this foolish road of destruction anyway…? I can tell you simply, it’s none other than the dictatorship of relativism, that’s had its near 100 year run-up to ruling all our lives to ruin… This cultural relativism, creating cultural particularism and it’s cousin cultural pluralism__is no pretty kitty… Oh it’s true, everyone thinks it’s such a great world, that all truths, viewpoints, perspectives and perceptions are equally valid__Oh it’s such a wonderful world with these new equal universal rights__The trouble is, no-one’s ever pointed it out to you, that this is the very destruction vehicle of all societies in history… It’s nothing new__The Indians experienced it__the Chinese, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Spanish, etc., on and on… It’s always the same story__it feels good, but few realize such a state of relativism is granting the same universal rights to ignorance and stupidity, as to intelligence and wisdom__which in turn can only destroy intelligence and wisdom, since ignorance and stupidity are always any states’ over-whelming majority…

If more could just realize it’s a simpler process to understand than they presently think, we may be able to step into a new pair of shoes… If more could just see it’s more a triadic bio-cognitive perception agency world, than the simple dyadic oppositions far too many think it is__as is clearly witnessed in the opposing gridlocks of global governments everywhere… Believe it or not__there is a middle way in all this global madness, if anyone just takes the time to look, instead of falsely believing it this way or that, left or right, right or wrong, good or bad, etc., on and on__which are all false extremes, never looking at the central truths__that are clearly staring everyone straight in the face__if they’d but open their sleepy eyes, and look… All our minds contain a bio-neuro-mirror system of abstract perception and cognition, between all our natural memory and perception states__which can easily see these three present conditional differences existing__at all times…

You know, I lived all my life practicing an iff conditional induction logic, which my job required… I didn’t realize how important this was until recently, to the work I was trying to achieve with my writing, as I’d not really looked deeply enough at just what I’d done all my life__I took it for granted so much, I actually didn’t see it__But, I now see it’s extreme importance in possibly adding something simple to understand to this modern over-confused and over-conflated world. To make this short and sweet, iff conditional common sense necessitates truth, intelligence and wisdom… It does this so simply, just by always asking or stating the iff conditionals of any desired aim or goal, before actually attempting to achieve any such aims or goals. As an example; “If you want a better world, you gotta do the work required to achieve such aims and goals.” Nothing comes easy, and I found all through my professional career, that if I premised all my actions by iff conditionals, I always had a much easier time of it. Another simpler example still is; “If you want me to do that for you, will you do this for me…?” The iff conditional logic is just a trade-off action, that allows the other person we all have to deal with, to have some input in the action__and such shared actions, aims and goals automatically develop co-operation among all involved, as everyone sees their part in the enterprise. It makes everyone feel important to be involved, if you allow them to be involved__and the iff conditionals allow just this…

The iff conditional is also a very powerful logic, when used inductively, as models can be best averaged over all inductions__in other words, we can answer, in general, future conditions of otherwise unknown states of nature, science and reality__as economists have been doing this for years__even though present political pin-head reality makes it look like economics is a bust… It’s not, it’s just politically corrupted by the powers that be__but if more people realized how iff conditional model logic actually works, we could have an army of very intelligent and influencial political operatives__to pass the properly written universally ethical international laws… Such simple knowledge sytems can do tremendous benefit, if properly understood…

A final thought I’d like to express is the fact that psychology lacks the economy of identity that philosophy uses__with its far more clearly worked out concepts of philosophy, over the millennia__and are imo a far more sound system of organizing thought… It’s not that psychology can not cognitively organize thought just about as well, it’s the fact that most psychologists do not use a sound economy of research, when working up and presenting their ideas__thus they contain far too much confused and conflated presentations imo, although there are some fine cognitive psychologists__they are few and far between… Most psychologists do not have a proper understanding of the universals, and the continuum of connectives involved__thus create a cognitive apartheid, lacking the needed cultural universalism…

As I stated first off, these are a jumbled bunch of ideas, but I think worth putting forth, as it helps me organize my better thoughts, later__yet at the same time, may contain something of interest to some__At least, it gives you some idea of the direction I’m headed… Presently, I’m putting together some ideas of recent books and other materials I’ve read and talked to others about, as to best methods to present major law change ideas…

The Conceptual Scientific__Non-Conceptual Imagination, Distinctions...

2010-04-14T12:00:00.000-07:00

Iff more people make the higher conceptual choices, we will have more chance, in a chance and choice world, of achieving the higher conceptual goals..." me

Hi all friends and enemies alike, and I can certainly see why you’d/we’d all have trouble making heads or tails of the differences between reason and rationalism, as the established academic community has not fully separated out the conceptual differences, from the imaginal differences, yet. Even Peirce, who did the best job of these processes, did not fully accomplish the job, in any common language. He only accomplished it through his entire system of signs, symbols and icons, etc., but this is the rather complex depth of his semeioses. I’ll do my best to make these concepts, ideas and imagination differences clear to you, as I’ve also noticed Wiki, or no other sources, deal with this effectively, without creating further confusion and un-necessary conflations of the ideas involved, whether historically__as the meanings have changed over time, or presently, due to so many different opinions. I’ll use the simple mechanics differences between scientific objective conceptualism, and non-conceptual imagination’s direct perception__to deal as best as I can with it. That should make it the simplest…

I’ve already answered most everything below, within your text, but I think you should read this first…

It was just last night that I came across a new scientific method to make clear distinctions, between rational conceptual science, and irrational non-conceptual opinion/imagination/religion or meta-physics of any kind… Up to this point in time even the best science and scientists have had great difficulty, using words, where meaning has double meaning, or applying meaning to different subject area meanings, especially between rationalism and reason, conceptualism and non-conceptualism, reason and logic, physics and meta-physics, direct and indirect perception, etc., but, I last night realized it could all be made clearly distinct by just discussing conceptualism and imagination…

In science, philosophy, and scientific method, conceptualism is defined as objectivism. This is how we know what is objective from what is subjective, or non-conceptual feelings__though feelings be real, they also can be extremely exaggerated by imagination__The 'Boogie-Man' that doesn’t exist. And, at the same time, science can suffer from exaggerated imagination at the hypothesis and theory stages, as well as the exaggerated maths of theories, i.e., there’s no such real physical world, that we can conceptualize existing beyond these numbers h = 10-33cm and c = 186,000mps, and t = 10-43cm , which represents h Planck length, the smallest we can scientifically measure, and c being the speed of light, the fastest we can scientifically measure, and t, time being the shortest motion we can measure __This is the domain of science, and nothing outside it is anything but false imagination, as there’s no integral path to ground, or the physical scientific proofs of, and herein lies the great difference between objective conceptualism and imagination. Concepts must be measurable, and groundable in physical reality, with an actual path integral, to the provable facts…

Imagination or exaggerated ideas and theories, on the other hand, are not only non-conceptual in certain ideas, such as conceptualizing the feeling “Happy”, but even where these imaginations, ideas and theories can be conceptualized, they entirely lack the necessary integral path from themselves to the necessary provable ground, i.e., these numbers can be conceptualized, yet never path integral grounded, as they exist as mathematical abstracts, beyond all our knowable reality; d = 10-999cm, and c = 10∞, and t = 0. Where we are certain such distance, speed of light numbers, and zero time, to such infinitesimals of distance, infinities of velocity, and zero time, are impossible of real and sound scientific measure, therefore nothing but exaggerated imagination, and anyone just common sensibly knows time zero is foolishly impossible, as there’d be no universe at all. So, the fact exists, that all possible thought can be scientifically classified, and or, scientifically classified, as not classifiable__What-so-ever…! Or, just the plain ol’ 'Boogie-Man' of any and all minds who spout such non-sense__There exists no sense in the world, to path integral connect un-real imagination to any form of scientific ground__thus exposing the purely meta-physical exaggerations of imagination, to all parties interested_or un-interested…

Simply put, there’s no possible path from exaggerated imaginations of any kind__to any form of feasible ground…

I think this is how you can easily tell the differences between all real and imaginational statements__Just ask if the concept of what’s being discussed is scientifically/realistically groundable__That scientifically exposes the truths of all statements, because true concepts all have integral paths to reality, and all exaggerations do not__And I mean, real physical paths to ground…

Link

The Logic Fallacy__Imagination --> Logic…

2010-04-14T11:51:00.000-07:00

Since being taught “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” of the logic fallacy, by my grandfather, at age 4, I’ve always noticed almost all others’ logic fallacy crop up in their reasoning processes. This is the fundamental scientific method of all reasoning processes, which must be most thoroughly understood, before one can successfully do any science, logic, math or proper theorizing of these most fundamental thought processes. It’s the most easily conflated area of thoughts crossing up between our basic ego-thoughts, imagined thoughts, imagination thinking, theory and hypotheses thinking, and the logical imagination being fully background independent__by the necessity of theory’s ability to think fully openly__yet to convert the fully open infinite thought processes, to finite results…

The above constitutes the interpretation process of all minds’ ability to find sound scientific conclusions to all possible models, theories and imaginings. We all know there are many theories proposed by science and metaphysics, for the mechanics, beginnings or non-beginnings of our Universe__But, what constitutes the heart of the ‘Interpretation Dilemma…?’ Imo, it’s knowing the differences between the capacities of thought to ground itself in that which is dependent on the finite, or background dependence__and in that which is non-dependent on the finite, or background independence__also stated as that ‘Ol’ Demon of Infinity__The Ultimate Non-Definable__The Absolute Universal…’

The Infinite is non-definable due to the fact that no matter how it’s added to, subtracted from, multiplied by, divided by or into itself__It’s always defined as Infinity. We can’t even take ratios of infinity, and achieve any other meaning than Infinity__But, we can compare infinity and ratios of finiteness, to infinity__And, herein lies the trick in our converting imagination to scientific logics, which must be grounded in finiteness__not to create confusion and conflations of the fundamental facts. I think it’s just because most have never looked deep enough into the fundamental mechanics of imagination’s necessary infinite functions, and logic’s necessary finite functions, that the logic fallacy arises…

We all may know that imagination truly requires the background independence of infinite function__but, have you truly considered what this entails…? The background independence of infinite thinking/reasoning is never a process of infinite regress__It’s always an induction process of infinite progress, toward the ultimate un-definable__But, at the same time is that ultimate limit of thought’s ability to think reasonably at all__Yet, entails the only true singularity of its self-existence, as the only possible true oneness, in the entire Universe__As going the other direction into finiteness, explodes into the infinite regress, of infinitesimal finitenesses, approaching infinity again, in the opposite direction of moving toward infinity. So, in truth, either direction the mind of thought travels, it ends up at infinity__Or the absolutely un-definable oneness of that ‘Ol’ Demon Singularity of Infinity…’

The difference of the above being, that science can only be determined from traveling the direction toward the finite infinitesimals, even if they still happen to explode into an infinite number of infinitesimals__When we divide any fundamental finite object to its smallest possible parts, as per this formula__X/X=1+IEE(isomorphic extension and entanglement), we end at the infinite infinitesimals of all the inter-weaving wave fields. This formula is just an extension of Einstein’s E=MC^2, which fully interpreted of potential mass, and kinetic energy, to total kinetic energy, can really be expressed as E=EC^2__Where all the stored potential mass of any matter object considered is fully decayed, to it’s most fundamental field waves, at the speed of light, or final decay limit. In other words, a titanium sized baseball, theoretically sped to the speed of light, would radiate all it’s potential mass energy to pure decay dispersed kinetic energy, at the true c speed of light, as no more than near zero mass photons, due to the fact that the field energy could no longer travel fast enough in group velocities, to hold the titanium ball together, at true c(no possible way for c to maintain its group em forces at true c…)

So, what we end with is the fact that neither the infinite nor the finite, offers a true ultimate finite testable experimental ground__for science to stand on. What we are really left with is a Ratio-Logic between the infinite number of finite infinitesimals to the total number infinity is capable of existing as__and the possible mechanics of maintaining the symmetry of the known laws of physics, to allow a proper functioning Universe__Which we absolutely know exists, by the fact if:__Ya kick a big rock, barefoot, and you get a very sore ToE. So, do we truly have any scientific method possible, of grounding a scientific logic in the finite background dependence, or must it be grounded in the infinite background independence…?

And, when we look for these answers, we are back at the ultimate problem of deciding what is the line we may draw between imagination and logic__as this is really our only possible true ground of reality__Since both ends of the model reality spectrum, end up at the infinite un-definable un-decidability. This is where we must realize the difference between what science classifies as science, and what science classifies as metaphysics. All science must be factually measurable, thus is known to be limited to the purely finite world of h Planck points plus, and true c and group c__Scientific measurement has no such animals as –h and true +c. This is the only method science defines sound finiteness, against the metaphysical infinite and sub-infinitesimal non-sense. If these limits are not respected, we have no science__We have only non-sensible metaphysics. So science is really nothing but definition of measurement__Pure and simple__The Measurable…

It’s just that where the measurable is between the finite and the infinite, most have never considered the scientific possibilities of a sound Ratio-Logic existing, to define the differences between imagination, and its many models and theories, and the truest finite model possible__as relates to the ‘Finite Oneness of Infinity…” Since, it’s really impossible to establish ground for the finite at the infinitesimal infinities level of, due to combinatorial explosions of field waves, as we go toward the smaller, which be necessary of becoming infinite__Then, the only door open to absolute ground is “The Finite Oneness of Infinity…” Now, this may at first sound contradictory, but it’s certainly not__as when one realizes all finities explode to infinities, at infinitesimal limits__the only option left, to achieve true scientific ground is “The Absolute Oneness of Infinity…” But, this should never be confused or conflated with how we do finite science__It’s sole purpose is to give solid grounding to where infinite imagination splits from the true and sound finite Ratio-Logic…

The Finiteness of True and Sound Scientific Measure, Is and Must Always Be__Our Fundamental Scientific Ground, Even Though We Must Thoroughly Explore Theoretical Infinite Imagination to Arrive At The Ultimate Truth__Which Is The Scientific Method of Hypothesis, Theory or Abduction…

Though There Be Thousands of Theories and Models__There Be Only One Absolutely True One__The Absolutely Necessary FS of Infinity__Because All Finiteness Decays Into The Absolute Fundamental Infinity Cycles, of The Great Circles Of The Eternal Infinite Universe…

The Universal Science of Physics and Cosmology, vs., The Metaphysical Fallacy of Inside à Out Thinking…

2010-04-14T11:45:00.000-07:00

"In order to need logic, we need a problem. In order to have a problem, we need to have a goal. In order to have a goal… we must have a mind…" by hambydammit

The scientific reality of Outside à In logical thinking is being almost entirely overlooked on most of this entire forum. Most every post I read is being premised from the mind’s background dependent ego circuits à out, onto the world stage. This type of thinking is not science, due to being grounded in the metaphysical experience of pure ego, instead of a logical id. No matter how much thinking, contemplating, meditating, theorizing or whatever, the scientific facts can never be reached by the background dependent inside-out process of thinking__From spirit and ego-out. All science must be grounded in the outside-in thinking processes, due to science requiring actual measurable grounding__Which no internal process offers__Due to the infinite regress to un-decidability. Outside-in always determines the proper scientific method…

Just as mentioned in this article I published a few days ago, any true scientific intelligence requires its external of mind system of proof, to allow it to escape the many metaphysical fallacies, which pervade most of the posts on this forum…

Universal Intelligence...
by hambydammit

"To begin, we must ask what intelligence is and what it does. It’s very difficult to speak of it without getting very complicated, for intelligence is not really a single quality. It is a related set of abilities displayed by living organisms, including the capacity for logic, foresight, abstract thought, communication, and problem solving. Each of these concepts in itself presents a big problem for universal intelligence, for each of them is intrinsically tied to organic life.

The capacity for logic is certainly not restricted to organic life. Computers are capable of using it, but we must not be fooled into thinking this to be extraordinarily important. Computers are tools made by humans to serve a purpose, and that fact is crucial to understanding why logic is such a big deal. In order to need logic, we need a problem. In order to have a problem, we need to have a goal. In order to have a goal… we must have a mind.

Similarly, foresight, abstract thought, and communication are all manifestations of purpose. A living being has a need or a want, and each of these abilities is an evolutionary adaptation which developed to facilitate the achievement of a goal. So intrinsically joined are these concepts with purpose that it becomes quite nonsensical to discuss a non-living thing having any of them."

If one is careful in reading the above, you will notice how the logic mentioned does not refer to the geo-sphere, but to the bio-sphere of humanity__Then not to the metaphysical, but to the rational physical aspects of calculation__logical calculations__Which are calculations which can either be done by real external world computers, or on real external world paper, blackboards, etc.,__This is what makes our thinking truly objective and real world provable__Not some inside-out metaphysical fallacy conjured up by the base ego, of dumb lil’ ol’ man. Why people can not understand, their logics must shed their egos’ background dependencies, for the true scientific background independencies of Universal Intelligence__over personal intelligence, is beyond me. It seems no matter how many times certain people are exposed to these facts, they just absolutely do not see or fathom the necessity of such scientific methods, to do real science__Science Is Never Science, Without the Outside à In Method__To back and prove its internal mechanics of using the innate logic tool…

How one detaches their logic from their background dependent ego is not important, as even extremely religious people can detach from their metaphysical egos, to do pure science, as many great physicists, scientists and philosophers have shown, all through the ages__It’s just the fact, it absolutely must be done to do any form of sound science. I detached years ago, when I realized I couldn’t explore the major fields of science and physics any further__by being far too attached to my ingrained beliefs, which were really no more than ideologies, fallacies of beliefs, and other such brain-washings of many of life’s ill advised experiences. It’s just that trying to see the world whole, from the inside-out is so limiting in scope, it forces anyone, including many of our best physicists, mathematicians and scientists into the ridiculous gauge theories, and metaphysically false oneness models, they’ll never be able to see the Universal background independent intelligences of true scientific and Universal grounds. The inside-out view of cosmic formation, or any type of Universal and biological evolution__Traps one’s mind in an impossibility of the real physical world, Universe and laws’ true and possible actions__Yet, the inside-outers can’t see it__And it’s mostly due to their old nemesis, the one-God non-sense. And, it’s not there’s anything wrong with believing in God, if that be your choice__But, where science is concerned__God absolutely must be abandoned__To do any real science__And that’s a fact…

Science is not God, not oneness, not inside-out metaphysical ego or spirit, and not any internal sense, that can not be absolutely measured and proved by external means__And, that’s the bottom line, of all or any scientific method, behind any and all possible science. To try and do science, while ignoring these fundamental requirements of logical reasoning__Will never achieve any form of science…

The Tri-Modal Mechanics of Minds…

2010-04-14T11:34:00.000-07:00

"All actionable necessity, is decided by systems' mechanics..." me
"Systems' Control__What can't be done, is more than what can be done..." me
"The space-time metric, is just the measurement tool of space and time..." me
"Universal intelligence is seeing time__Time connects all concepts..." me

The Interesting Questions__What is intelligence…? Is there truly anything that is really classifiable as intelligence…? Our egos have taken these questions for granted so long, we think it ridiculous to even ask such questions__But, is it ridiculous, or possibly the most important series of questions we must ask and answer, to discover any true grounding for any and all of our scientific investigations…? I say it is certainly the most profound and important scientific area of investigation we must explore, to truly understand our selves, and the greater Universe around us…

If we just take all mentality's systems' control, and explore its limits, through its opposing ends of subjective complexity, and objective complexity, all the way to super-objective systems’ complexity, we may begin to see some of these avenues of new groundings, even if these new groundings be in a complete realization of background independencies, not yet realized, in all our information and knowledge systems. Take a look at Robert Plutchik’s emotion diagram:

and one can easily see why any forms of subjective emotional intelligence quickly becomes almost impossible of interpretation or conceptualization, due to the complex inter-connectednesses possible__thus preventing anything but a general reference related to motives of will, or goals. It isn’t that we can’t know all these individual aspects of emotions, it’s just we have no distinct method of separating these many energy sources, from the whole, to make any particular sense of the individual information systems. All we can at most achieve, is to make up just about any scenario we may please, or the origin of the personal private languages, long ago mentioned by Wittgenstein…

Now, let’s look at the objective conceptualizable intellect, and see if we fair any better. Take any object you may wish, internal instinctual systems, or external objects, objective systems, or anything at all that we may form intelligent analysis about, and simply ask; “Do we actually form a true and viable intelligence of these many thousands of information systems, or do we just assemble information scenarios, hypotheses, concepts and simple relationships of…?” Truly look into the depths of your personal and intellectual analysis/es of any and all of the ideas you’ve looked at, or do hold as truths in your mind right now, and see if you really observe intelligence of the objectives and objects represented, or you are really assessing your own personal ego__and how can you seriously tell the difference…?

Now, let me complicate the problem even more by adding in the super-objectivity of the total global systems’ mechanics involved in the entire question, of any scenario, hypothesis, theory or whatever you may set up or think about, and ask what’s the relationships of the subjective systems’ mechanics, with the objective systems’ mechanics, and finally with the super-objective systems’ mechanics. By the super-objective systems’ mechanics I’m talking about all the physical geological, biological, cosmic, chemical, electrical, techtonic, volcanic, earthquake, flood, tsunami, gamma ray blast, resources’ depletions, metals depletions, minerals depletions, economics and contract goals from outside systems, the sun and sun bursts, em field changes, galactic system changes, on and on or whatever… What are the total effects on any single system we may think about, in relation to the interactions of all three of these major systems’ mechanics…? Is it even possible to know any real truth about such complexity on this end of the spectrum either, any more than it is at the bottom end of the emotional and instinctual systems spectrums…? It’s not that we can’t do the conceptual analyses of the individual elements, it’s the fact it’s next to impossible to hold these high number of concept systems’ mechanics’ inter-actions, in perception long enough to gather the accurate information required, to achieve scientific truth. The higher the number of concepts involved, the lower the probabilities of possible successes. The best we achieve, as the numbers of systems increases, is a fuzzy logic, and more fuzzy the higher the elements involved__Yet we and our systems of academics do not seem to take these facts into consideration when designing the definitions of what intelligence may truly be… So, is it truly anything any more clear to defining what intelligence really is than Plutchik’s ideas and complexities of emotional intelligence…?

I think our big egos have a long ways, to climb down out of the sky, to reach any soundness of real ground… There isn’t even any mathematics possible of handling all the complexities I’ve mentioned above__No matter how many computers are tasked to the problem, of finding and defining true intelligence… Intelligence may equate to a ToE, but if we can’t even begin to define intelligence, how can we ever expect to define a ToE…?

The honesty and experience mix, must be looked at much deeper. Truly look at these scenarios, and let me know how you see science having any possibility of defining a truly grounded intelligence__as relates to any possible ToE... The closer to inclusion of everything, the closer to the complexity of everything. The closer to simplicity of everything, the closer to the complexity of everything… You lose, by losing in either direction…

Mentality's Systems' Control__Limits = Subjective Complexity <--> Objective Complexity

The Meta- & Meta-Meta-Linguistics of Thought & Language …

2010-04-14T11:25:00.000-07:00

Here we all are, involved in a Quest for a theory of everything__most without realizing the near impossibility of thought and language__to even achieve this vast goal, without first requiring a thoroughly new linguistics and language understanding. Just take a look back at Socrates’, Plato’s and Aristotle’s eras, and you’ll quickly see the roots of this very problem. Socrates defeased all arguments to aporia, meaning he deconstructed all arguments to the limits of undecidability. Plato argued all ideas to total exhaustion, while trying to exclude imagination from all such agruments. Aristotle used all the previous methods, plus inventing his own special definitions of logical exclusions, to win his debates. They all used special tactics to win philosophical, psychological and cognitive arguments, yet all grounded their ideas in different states of knowing…

Socrates grounded his knowing in proving the not-knowing ability of aporia. Plato grounded his knowing in proving to the Universals, and Aristotle grounded his knowing in proving to the individual metaphysicals, that is, reason was grounded in God, whereas Plato’s grounding was in God’s Universals, yet Socrates grounding was in a total background independence, of not knowing__Which actually turns out to be the closest to the truth, of real possible proof. The funny thing is, most have never realized practically nothing of the same old debates has really changed over the millenia. We are actually still debating these same issues, to these very same, yet, different three grounds__and none of them are truly grounded, as Socrates is the ground of no ground. Plato excludes imagination, which is actually required in the grounding of anyone’s full spirit, and Aristotle excludes the most of all with his special definitions of logic, which just happens to be the most incomplete reasoning system of all three__as clearly proven by Boole, Ibn Sina, Peirce, Tarski and Hintikka…

So, what’s to be done, when differences of opinion, such as between myself, Greg and others creeps into our search…? I see these differences of style, and know they are linguistic differences of cognitions at the meta- and meta-meta-understanding levels, but am incapable of convincing any others they are simple mis-understandings and mis-interpretations of the meta- and meta-meta-languages used, which implicitly and explicitly contain the many meta-levels of meanings nested in, or added into the languages used by everyone, by free-will and choices of debate styles… I see the same exact arguments between the early Greeks, as do I between the moderns mentioned above, and Greg, myself and others__They are identical and un-changing in nature, from the Greeks and others onward… So, what is to be done, when one group may recognize the fact, an entirely new language is absolutely required to even discuss a ToE, let alone fully produce its finished results, and other groups and individuals are not even aware of these glaringly obvious facts and necessities…?

Everyone can easily think they are immune to the nature of meta- and meta-meta-complexities, but no-one truly is__It’s the nature of the game of human language__by default evolution. Nobody’s paying attention to how they are thinking about thinking, except to advantage ones own positions__and herein lies the largest part of the problem. We all have ingrained habits to use language to our best abilities to achieve our desired goals of getting our own points across__while never considering the damage our own words, and use of concepts, may, in reality, be menacing to the alternate parties involved. We are all guilty of this, even the spiritualists, when they state ‘higher consciousness’ etc., without even realizing how insulting this is to all those with lower consciousness or states of mind. So, how can ‘higher consciousness’ be any higher when its insulting to its subordinates, to even mention such terms…? In fact it can’t be true, so it’d truly be a much wiser road for all the consciousness advocates to take the lower road of transc(i)ndence instead of transc(e)ndence, as it’s far less offensive to advocate a lower state of knowledge than the higher pompous state of knowledge. The lower road is the safer and more civil path__to relay information, knowledge, intelligence or wisdom to others…

Now, what would this lower road consist of…? It’s not a giant system, as many would think. It’s simply the missing common sense dialogue of profound common sense, being recognized as the old wisdom, that’s been lost for so many years. It’s simply the middle interpretation between all the differences. It’s the entire parts of all systems’ thinking, being fully recognized within the parameters of the general universal concepts__and the Universal perameters being recognized about the entire parts of all Universal systems. It’s simply a system of not excluding any of the information having validity of description, within its own domains, yet not pertaining to domains outside its own domain, unless it actually does happen to apply to these other domains. It’s simple recognizing the absolute necessity of domain categorizations just as Linneaus long ago taught, as well as did Aristotle and many others, but Linneaus is still the stronger case, as it classifies sentience from sapience within species… It offers the world one of the best domain classification systems, as its organized in a dependence level from bottom to top, just as was also offered by Peirce, for a much larger philosophic scientific system of actual ordered dependencies, from bottom to top, or top to bottom, if that’s your flavor… We can not do without these ordered domain classification sytems, when trying to build the information and language systems, that absolutely must be built, to describe any form of a ToE…

Just as an example; How do we classify anything within a Universal domain, unless we classify everything within that domain, in thorough particular terms, that we know actually belong and return to that Universal domain…? How do we classify anything within a particular domain, unless we classify everything within its domain, in a return path to its original Universal domain, from which it came…? These circular domain links must be made, to have any of our Universals and Particulars make any reasonable sense to us, or we’re simply left swimming in the sea of undefined meta- and meta-meta-confusions and conflations of the true facts… In order to achieve this goal, we must recognize the absolute need for such a goal to achieve sound and valuable science, since science without values, use, aims goals, etc., is simply ‘Methodological Stupidity’, and we are interested in only its opposite, ‘Methodological Wisdom’, which is simply science with known uses, aims and goals__or real values to the human race__This will require, ‘A New Universal Language of Social-Scientific Philosophy of Generality With Genericity…’

When anyone attempts to take science to the level of ‘Naked Science’(science without values), one is simply taking that science to the level of ‘Pure Methodological Stupidity’, just as many of the early Greeks did, and the ‘logical positivists’ did, in the 19th and early `20th centuries. It took the ‘Pure Methodological Wisdom’ of Boole, DeMorgan, Schroder, Peirce, Jevons, Veblen and Keynes to raise the world from the ‘logical positivist’s’ sewer of ‘Pure Methodological Stupidity’ of the earlier era, and now the world seems to have drifted back into this foolish era again__We must take the reins and rise to a new day, once again, by simply recognizing the ‘True Methodological Wisdom’ we are centainly capable of__as it’s no more than that good old stand-by of profound common sense__’The Middle Way of True Experiential Human Values, Aims, Goals and True Use, Added to Science...’

A Master Vision of Universal Wisdom…

2010-04-14T11:19:00.000-07:00

There exists a Universal wisdom knower, of all human minds__he wants to meet you, as he’s a major part of your own mind, you may not have yet realized… This same idea can be expressed through the science of modal wisdom__or the science of future logic, thought to its ultimate limits__and everyone possesses this natural ability. It’s nothing but your childhood mind, of deep critical imagination…

If you don’t yet believe the above paragraph, just let me set up one possible model of mind, that’s really been brewing over the last century or so... Consider the mind as an infinite sided mirror, rotating one vision of reality after another before your perception analyzer__continuously all your life. Further consider this to be a close analogy to what quantum mechanics proposed early in the last century__that of a world of all possible worlds, and that one of them is the real world. Also consider the most recent discoveries about mirror neurons in monkies, having the ability to copy behavior of what’s seen of others. Now, consider this infinite sided mirror to have the ability to mirror every action of ever citizen, plant and animal on planet Earth, without acception…

Such a perception analyzer would be a considerably powerful computer, if the individual possessed the power of interpretation and directional use over this bio-computer. Well, man actually does have such capacity through his choice of free-will__But, just what does free-will entail? Is it thinking about the past, present or future? Is it thinking about the possibilities, probabilities and necessities of life, or something else? Really, if you think about it, both the last two sentences’ contents just about covers what the mind is capable of, at all times__We/I constantly think about all past, present and future visions, through the many possibilities, probabilities and necessities, but also the deeper thoughts of the alternatives of each. By the alternatives, I simply mean the internal thought processes of all past, present and future states of thought, of both sentences’ contents, i.e., if we be thinking about ourselves or others in any past, present or future state of contemplation, we also can envision their internal state of vision, as to the deeper states of all states possible. This is really quite an amazing computer, sitting atop our shoulders…

By thinking about this deep enough, one realizes the entire mechanics represents a background independent processing machine. It’s hindered by nothing in its infinite capacities, accept its own reason and logic circuits, to separate the infinite imagination and emotions, from the finite rational and logical circuits__and when viewed thoroughly enough, by its even deeper innate mathematical logical circuits__of ratioed thoughts__as ratioed thoughts are the final arbiter of all logic and emotion circuits. So, when one truly views this amazing lil’ ol’ machine, one is struck by the question__Is it alive, or just the simple mechanical processing machine described above…? Are we animate, or truly inanimate…? Can we know, what we think we know, about knowing at all…? Do we know, or just convince ourselves we know, by viewing the asymmetry of the infinite mirror processor in action…? Can we possibly know at the speed of light__even if light is considerably slowed in and by our gray matter…? It’s still much faster and more complex than we could ever hope to realize its full potential__Isn’t it…?

Thinking it over, in general, what can we understand about this lil’ ol’ mechanical ball of mush, on our shoulders…? It seems the closer we try and get to the parts actions and particulars of these functions, the less is truly possible of knowing__Yet, the closer we try and get to the whole’s actions and particulars of its functions, the more we can truly gleen and know about its overall mechanics. Historically, looking back over all its individual functions, we/I simply see humanity as a bunch of insects, poking around in the mold of planet Earth, never accomplishing much accept to recycle everything, including ourselves/themselves__Yet, when looked at as a whole, there seems to appear a pattern to all this seeming madness. Historically, we no longer feed Christians to the lions, though many would still like to. We no longer accept the brutalities of old, as accepted forms of action. We no longer slaughter at will, any time we feel the urge… So, historically, life has changed and evolved, to a more civil form of life__and I’d say we’d have to accept this as a ‘moral achievement’ of human historical evolution. So, the history of the species actually does have a ‘Goal’, from all the historical evidence, to improve its moral condition__no matter what’s been academically stated falsely about morality__It’s real, by the evidence of ‘all’ history…

This evidence counters much of philosophical history, and actually gives a true ‘Purpose’ to life, that many have been, and are arguing against__But the evidence is overwhelmingly clear. The ‘Goal’ of humanity seems to be moral enhancement__So, even if the dynamic being be viewed as a simple processing machine(in its least state of action), it still has a moral/ethical/esthetic objective, and or ‘Goal’, of achievement__as ‘all’ history is mightily evidence to. This is the reason, I’ve stated so much about Charles Sanders Peirce, as he’s actually the only person I know who created an entire school of scientific thought dedicated to the study of future human action, based on ‘Esthetics’__The Science of Goals…

Without studying the Scientific Goals of Humanity, we have nothing but ‘a theory of re-cycling insects…’ Goals are what separate us as a different species, from all the other species__Moral Goals__The Truly Asymmetric Liberties of Humanity…

The Inner Believing Agent_Reason & The Outer Knowing Agent_Logic…

2010-04-14T11:07:00.000-07:00

”Reason can’t see, only logic sees__reason only feels and thinks, thus reason is highly fallible, compared to logic…”
“Rationality is not of reason. Rationality is of logic…”

All over the world are those who accept reason as the ultimate believer and knower of all information in the mind. They think logic is some simple add-on, created by a few thought laws of Aristotle. Others think reason is guided by principles and axioms, etc., but is still the ultimate decision engine of the mind. Oh, some do recognize the importance of arithmetic and higher mathematics, evidence and other such sciences of their innate beliefs__but few in the world recognize the higher importance of logic. Most, especially the innate believers, even realize there is such an innate agent as pure and natural logic, thinking it just some additional aspect of reason, as has been the recorded history down through the centuries, except by the few who did make the distinctions between the inner believing reasoning agent, and the outer seeing and knowing logic agent…

And herein lies the most major difference between all the world’s investigators of truths and knowledge systems. Believing is not knowing, and knowing is not accepting the fallacies of the believing agent of reason. At base, it’s as simple as knowing reason can never do logic’s job, and logic can never do reason’s job. Were either to attempt the other’s jobs, each would certainly destroy the other, as these are two entirely independent thinking agents, within the perception agency of all minds__and always have been, no matter how much history’s pseudo-mentalities have run them together. If anyone wants to discover the truths necessary to guide the lives of communities of diverse peoples, world wide, then this simple fundamental lesson of mental mechanics must be thoroughly understood__and not just by playing lip service to the idea__but truly taking the time to investigate its massive importance to effective thinking__on all levels…

Tis true reason can perform many tasks, but knowing is not one of them, as this would entirely corrupt the purpose of reason’s function__which is to learn the causes, and whys of the world. To say that reason can also do its own logic is a complete mental fallacy, as no epistemic agent can perform more than one task, within itself, at any one given time(limited by the +’s and –‘s of em’s)__without completely destroying the activity of its first task, i.e., if reason first starts by asking why, it can not switch to asking how, due to the cross-currents(the +’s and –‘s of em’s) of conflating the idea__which is solely the job of innate and direct objective logic. Further reason can never answer as to true or false, whether by reason or numbers, as this is entirely the domain of logic, and no reasoning agent is capable of finding truth and falsity, as per the ratios and numbers faculties(the +’s and –‘s of em’s)__only logic can. If you’ll notice, this leaves reason as an agent of the emotions, and logic as an agent of the intellect, and tis only the job of reason to operate subjectively from the innate feelings by direct perceptual seeing, precepts and percepts__while logic’s intellectual job is to operate from the higher mind through direct observation, precepts, conceptualism and external evidence and science, as the higher mind is geared almost entirely above the base instinctual emotions, whereas reason operates directly in conjunction with the instinctual emotions, thus making reason the subjective non-conceptual agent, while logic is the only truly operational objective conceptual agent__and the mind’s only knowing agent, while the reasoning agent is barred from ever knowing, by being locked in the emotional-reasoning, believing only, state__unless certain minds be assisted by the choice of a personally directed logic state use, mainly being framed by the innate reasoning state, of conflation of ideas…

Now of course, many of the world’s reasoners would/will highly object to this analogy, but they simply do not realize their own minds, from birth, have always automatically used the logic agent over the emotional reasoning agent, all their lives. They just fail to notice where and when the logic agent kicks in to do their mind’s higher tasks of finding truth and creating, using, blending and deciding concepts. Reason still demands it can know the truth, based on its innate instincts__and it can know many truths, but only by this natural hidden operational mechanics of such individuals logic capacities, kicking in automatically to save their thinking processes, without them even realizing it__then them in turn, thinking the automatic higher_reasoning to them_agent is the touchy-feely spirit or even worse_God_When in fact, it’s the simple logic agent which naturally exists as the deepest innate mechanics of all individuals… If the reasonists would simply investigate the long history of excellent mentalities, who’ve thoroughly studied all logic’s abilities and capacities__they’d centainly discover how to convert reason’s beliefs to sound logical understandings and scientific knowings__over the lesser state of falsifiable beliefs__which all go the infinite regress route, to absolute un-definability and un-decidability…

Just as an addition to this, I’ll add what I posted on ‘Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism…?'

A Scientific Methodology of Understanding All Conversations...

First I'm not using non-conceptualist as an insult, as it's the best method we possess as free individuals to understand the differences and distinctions between what is scientific knowledge, and what is not scientific knowledge, and that's all it's for. If, through all the research I've done over the years, I had no way to sort truth from lie, fact from fiction, I'd never have been able to learn much, especially since new information crowds out old information__at rates far faster than we can store and remember it. I was lucky enough to have someone who taught me how to process information early on, and that someone was my professor, grandfather, and my father and mother were no slouches either, as they'd both studied under him or been extremely influenced by him. I later in life came across a cosmological scientist who used my grandfather's same system of conceptuality and non-conceptuality, which helped cement my method in later life. It's simply the process of realizing how the mind must have a mechanism, naturally given, to detect truth from lie, and it does. This process is to know that all factual information must have external and internal correspondence, to be scientifically factually, a candidate for any scientific method, theory, hypothesis, or possible factual proof__It's simply an unavoidable necessity...

All objective scientific facts have positive external possible proofs which match our internal objective conceptual processes(meaning we're picturing the outside world internally_also epistemically meaning we're picturing real identifiable internal epistemic agents, i.e., ratio, logic, will, judgment, etc._those we absolutely know operate individually as to finite objective function, through centuries of epistemic research...), within perception. All subjective non-scientific, which would also be the subjective non-conceptual, do not have positive external, or positive internal possible proofs, which are even possible of being represented by concepts__yet some are directly seeable within perception, such as real inner innate feelings, while still others such as myths, are neither positively seeable nor even conceptualizable__because they lack all outside of both body, and the mind's objective conceptualizing abilities' corroborations and proofs. Therefore, when you know this, you can easily sort fiction from fact__emotion from science__truth from lie__in just about all fields of study on Earth, just by either listening to, or seeing the content, structure and context of the choice of words, others use. We all have what gives us away, as to the intelligence level our words portray, especially to those as studied as I__and I'm not saying that to pat myself on the back__it's just it must be stated to explain it__and the science of it would be in the framing debates of linguistics, and the many schools and subjects of epistemology. Of course, specific facts must always be checked, but the general natural intelligence factor, of using the mind scientifically__holds for all fields. I could name and cite hundreds, throughout history, who've discussed this personal scientific understanding methodology, but these are my own chosen words, in two simple paragraphs__there it is...

Oh, the non-conceptualist is simply a person who does not use a precise scientific method, as per above, to understand what science is trying to say...

The Pre-Suppositional Automatic Framing of Our Modal/Mood Logics…

2010-04-14T10:59:00.000-07:00

“An infinite number of subjective realities; only one observable objective reality?” LW

How many of you have clearly noticed the huge gaps existing between the scientific and spiritual linguistics, being used here at ToeQuest…? I don’t just mean the differences of subjects chosen and related about, but the much deeper gulf between the groundings, or no grounding states, of these ideas, especially as relates to many of the imaginationists, spiritists and spiritualists__or between the pre-suppositional believers, and the pre-cognizing scientific thinkers. Modern psychologist’s have given demonstrations of how pre-suppositional framing of discussions can set the entire tone of discussions or debates so that a knowledgable psychologist can actually predict__pre-handed, what is in the audience’s minds. This has been done many times, to show how important and powerful the automatic framing of pre-suppositional thinking truly is to understanding the scientific, and non-scientific, framing of linguistics__and why so many people become trapped by the intellects and feelings’ uses, that may be a bit sharper than their own…

How often have you said to yourself; “Why do I feel this person is saying something, when I clearly know they are not…?” Why do you suppose this happens…?

Let’s just take as a first example, Pat’s thread, ‘An Idea’, and see how framing the thread with an innocuous term ‘Idea’ seems harmless enough, but look at the power of the word itself__It actually covers every idea possible of being thought, therefore sets up a powerful linguistic frame, that automatically draws you in. Few at first notice the innocence of the title is to disguise the author’s true pre-suppositional intent__which is an attempt to overthrow science, by offering his personal non-grounding in a pre-suppositional non-science of spiritual beliefs and pure personal faith, mixed with his special brand of conflated science and spirit__which allows no validity to science what-so-ever, due to the fact science must be pre-grounded in the real world of objects__and that means, even Einstein’s subjective relative mechanics analyses. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God = Non-Conceptualism = ‘Zero Meaning’ = Pure Spiritual Egoic Non-Sense, and will not cut it as having any relationship to real grounded world, science__What-So-Ever…

Before the word, was the ‘Image’ and the image was scientific = ‘Object Conceptualism’ = ‘Real Meaning’ in a visual Universe__and this is the only absolutely true grounding possible for ‘Science’ to have… It’s the only true modal logic of necessity, which all true science must start with, to have scientific validity. It doesn’t start in any pre-suppositional world of a ‘Loose Idea’, ‘Exaggerated Spirit’ or ‘Exaggerated Imagination’ etc., it starts in the real and absolutely directly perceived/seen real object/objective world__Absolutely no pre-suppositions required__It’s present__It’s real__It exists__It is__Period… No amount of ‘Exaggerated Imagination’, ‘Spirit’ or ‘Loose Ideas’ can remove these soundly grounded facts. If one simply realizes; All ‘Evil Thinking’ springs eternally from the ‘Non-Conceptualisms’ of ‘Non-Meaning Words…’, and ‘Non-Meaning Un-Grounded Ideas and Spirits’, the world could possibly start to think from a more grounded reality, of what is, instead of all the foolish ideas, of what is clearly not… These ‘Non-Meaning Words and Ideas’ simply ignore ‘First Images’ to force the false perpetrators’ ‘Evil Egos’ into the world… All ‘Real Objective Value and Meaning’ exists Only in ‘Material Scientific Conceptualism’, which also duely recognizes the validity of our ‘Subjective Natural Innate Feelings’, to convey the many wonderful ways we may ‘Feel’ about what we believe we see and know, but never to “Truly Know’ what we believe we see and know of the subjective world__Objectively, except where these ‘Fundamental Innate Feelings’ are concerned, when viewing and feeling others__Subjectively__Then still, the intellectual scientific meanings should, or must be, well sorted from the ‘Innate Feelings”, to have any real ‘Objective’ truth validity…

Next is probably the most creative yet damaging aspect of the pre-suppostional thinking to enter the world in the modern era__loosely referred to as ‘New-Age Thinking’, or I really should say, the capacity of ‘Non-Thinking Wit and Exaggerated Rhetoric’ to destroy all constructed systems of thinking, yet not powerful enough to destroy the truly grounded sciences, that are truly founded in the objective visible world. Tis true this ‘New-Age Non-Sense’ has the ability to destroy constructed thought systems, as they are not grounded enough in true science, and many should be destroyed. The trouble is, this mind of ‘Imaginationist Exaggerations’ hasn’t the sense to sort the trivial from the necessary__thus pushing this ‘Exaggerated Emotional Spiritualism’ into a pure ‘Exaggerated Intellectual Racism Against the Scientifically Necessary’, and this is very dangerous__As it just may have the power to destroy the world’s necessary logic and knowledge survival systems… This can easily be witnessed by simply reading the threads and posts of MK, Nobody, Drifter, and Melanie__to mention but a few…

In all these battles, the web is leaving academics in the dust, as the battle of negative and positive spiritualism, pits its weaknesses against a bold scientific logic__yet, there is much trouble on the horizon. Whether most of science’s troubles are coming from the ‘Exaggerated Belief, Faith and Religious Communities’, ‘The Exaggerated New Age Thinkers and Players’, or the newest breed of ‘Exaggerated Dis-Informationists’, as represented by those who write in the vein of Mikal’s ‘Emotional Dis-Informationalism’, is still open to further debate, but I certainly side against it…

The Einstein epistemic gap, closed the objective concept/object and the subjective field/energy faultlines of thought considerably, from the turn of the last century on, but at the same time opened a flood-gate for these many new ‘Exaggerated Pre-Suppositional Intellectual Belief Systems’ to flourish, with the many mis-understandings of what relative mechanics truly is. These groups, usually referred to as ‘Post-Modernists’ have corrupted their own layman’s and academic abilities of truth discovery, for a foolish pin-head belief in ‘Relative Truth Systems’, which clearly do not scientifically exist, but don’t ask any of these modern exaggerators of the facts, as this is exactly what they do believe__’All Truth Is Relative’, when in fact, ‘Relativity only Means and Pertains to Measurement’, and speaks nothing to truth systems__At all__Just scientific measurement of the physical object world… The ‘Emotional Dis-Informationists’ need to realize that subjective non-sense can not, and never will, answer objective sense. These pre-suppositional illusions are great entertainment between the intelligence of intelligences__within all the methodological sciences of the many intelligences of the truest schools of academic thought, and these new ‘Emotional Dis-Informationists’. But, here again, all it is is the initial pre-suppositional framing of idea sources, where this school of recent thought thinks/believes it can ground its self-thought truth validity in its personal ‘Emotions’, when the ‘Facts’ have been historically, epistemically known for centuries, this is nothing but the infinite regress, to un-definability and un-decidability, not to mention its utter non-sense, of any attempts at__scientific validity…!

Imo, ‘The Architectonics of Our Wisdom’ should be looked at within an entirely new methodological intelligence project__based in a most common sense ground possible, of a new modal triadic ratiocinator visionary wisdom logic… This would simply be recognizing the third leg of modal logic__as ‘Necessity First’__and by this I simply mean looking at how the Universe and our real world of Bio-Nature automatically grounds us ‘First, of All Ideas’, in her given ‘Objects and Images of’__’The Truly Necessary Ground’ of our first thinking, then maybe we could take up the other two legs of modal logic__’Possibility and Probability’, from a true common-sensically given ground base of ‘A New Universal Communication’, about our real Universe and World__For A Change…!

Wisdom Does Not Create Victims...

2010-03-08T10:30:00.000-08:00

As Originally Posted by leskey, at ToeQuest...

Wisdom does not create victims.

A most excellent point Lesley. Now, if most others could actually realize what's truly in this simple sentence... I think one of the better ways to show the content is by using and clarifying Greg's statement;

"there are no good emotions ..... just an absence of bad ones produces the natural. We are naturally effervescent ... if you remove negative effects ..... biology ??",

or at least, part of his statement; "there are no good emotions..." Laughter and sex are good emotions, as far as I'm concerned, so the statement's not entirely true. Further, it was long ago shown by the middle Arabic empires that the seat of logic was emotions, as base instincts, and they named it 'logica utens', in contrast to 'logica docens', of the earlier Greek academic schools of thought. Since, people who've deeply studied science and logic, at limits, have come to the scientific realization, that all science is grounded in our basic human instincts, and built upon them, which at base be no more than random emotional energy__We as humans just happen to have geo-chemico-biological choice over this random geo-quantum-energy uncertain process, which we can shape into logical certainty, etc, iff we but choose to. It's just most haven't yet realized this is exactly what we as humans do every day of our lives, from birth onward. Just think about it; We are presented with a phenominal world of mass confusion to figure out. We don't create it__we are simply born into it. To our micro-processing abilities of youth, it's over-whelming__yet, we develop working memory storage areas to sort, store and think about all these many phenomena. It's such an automatic process, from birth forward, we don't even much pay attention to the very complex mechanical processes taking place inside our heads__Unless one day, we awake to a drastically confused state of mind, we must figure our ways out of__and usually this is emotional mal-functions that have crept in over our many bad relationships, etc.__Trauma... This is the state we absolutely must start using all our mental power of logic and reason, to sort out the messes we've made of our own lives__And, it's a very deep introspective process, that can last for years__Iff studied long enough, and deep enough, this is where we'll eventually discover the differences between base 'logica utens'__emotional instinctual logic and profound common sense; and 'logica docens'__the tremendous brainwashing of the family, friends and academic genocidal moralities...

Of course, most will never get this deep in the great discoveries of how the mind evolves from her dyadic natural radom instinctual energies and emotions, to her more refined self-governing uniform intellectual reasonings of futurist triadic modal and model logics, or real wisdom. Most will listen to friends, relatives or professionals to guide their minds falsely into workable, yet unsatisfiable and blind futures, of being stuck in the past's processing within the perameters of a very limiting negative oriented dyadic 'logica docens'__while the rarified few will self-investigate their own minds to the very core of the 'logica utens' deepest centers of their futurist positive visions, into the natural triadic modal and model logics, and truest visions of possible, probable and necessary worlds. The only difference in the two ways of thinking is the elimination of past nonsense, and all negatives of thinking, for the future's models' goals and aims, of absolutely positive outcomes. Few adults ever realize this great life transition has the two drastically different courses of travel__One into the dead and lost past__The other, into the living and glaringly obvious realist future... "...if you remove negative effects ..... biology ??" __ NO ... Everything Physically and Mentally Desired Becomes Possible__Within reasonable and rational limits, "...if you remove negative effects .....!!!"

Now, to show why this is, just think back to your childhood, before those so called friends, relatives and professionals steered you wrong__and you'll quickly see where you were put on the wrong road of life, and into your dreadful over-worship of the negative past paths of past life's false views. Just think about childhood__Could you hardly wait for Christmas, holidays and birthdays...? No, you lived for those futures... When you started school, could you hardly wait for the school day's end__No, you constantly stared at the clock, waiting for the future... Did you constantly think about weekends all week...? Of course you did__You could hardly wait for those exciting weekend futures. Were you constantly planning your pleasing futures...? Of course, it's all you thought about__Good times futures. Did you constantly think about Summer coming, and what you'd be doing...? Of course, we all as children thought almost nothing about anything but the future... Even if it was Fall, we thought practically nothing else except a fun winter's future__That was our most common nature as children__So, what happens as adults, to make so many, fall into thinking only about the dead and negative past...? Wouldn't it be wiser, as even Christ the philosopher taught, to become as little children, to enter the kingdom of heaven__or simply seeing better futures__as I'd call them...??? All my life has been spent trying to rid myself of these foolish and usless negative pasts, to see the future clearly, for the present ever fades at the speed of light into the past so fast, it really doesn't even exist, for any practical sense__so the most sense was really made by the poet T.S.Elliot; "Times past, and times present, both are present in times future..." Nothing could be more profoundly true...

So, I think all should come out of times past and times present, and enter the real childhood world of times future__through the necessary realities of triadic modal and model logics of what is truly possible, probable and necessary for our very future survivals__and throw away all this nonsense argument and debate about useless subjects that involve nothing but our ever dead and gone pasts__They are almost useless to our futures' reasoning about real wisdom, which never produces victims__Wisdom only and ever creates better futures__Just as you ever dreampt them, as a child...

Child-Wisdom over adults__They can see the future__Better_better_best...

Some of the worst statements in the world;
"All politics is local."
"Think globally, act locally."
"One must study the past, not to repeat it."

The Innate Modal Ratio-Logic of Hope…

2010-02-18T11:11:00.000-08:00

Most are so influenced by the old adage; “If we do not learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it”, that they take this worn-out phrase as gospel__Nothing could be further from the truth. What’s the past got to do with the future…? Do we want or need to know this dated ancestral worship phrase at all...? Does it serve any community of people, to worship the mistakes of the past...? Is worshipping the dead knowledge of the past, one of our major problems, or possibly the entire problem, with learning and academics...? I say plainly and simply__Yes it is…!!!

Instead of people being guided into the creative directional knowledge and wisdom of better future courses of action__far too many schools of thought are far too overly-concentrated on studying the dead past’s mistakes__instead of any real and true hope for our necessary futures. Do we want to repeat the past…? No…!!! Then why keep studying the bad non-directionality of our ancestors__They’ve eliminated not, the poverty, that’s truly creating the crime and wars…? This seems to me to be the most foolish action possible, to follow, as what’s truly needed is a new directional intelligence into our solid futures of new, possible, probable and necessary hopes. This would be the modal logics of a new future directional path for our overly concentrated “in the past” mentalities. We must begin to redirect our minds to these new possible futures, if we are ever to truly move forward, and leave these dead past fallacies to the dustbins of history__where they’ve belonged for far too long, for my memory to even conceive…

If one just truly looks to the world’s greatest orators__What was their true power…? Was it talking ceaselessly about the dead past, or new, possible and better futures, and their purity of hope…? The answer is easy__It was always talking about new, possible, probable and necessary better futures, whether we speak of Gandhi, Martin Luther King or John F. Kennedy, etc, on and on__Then go back through all history’s great orators and oratory writers, and you’ll easily see the world was attracted to the new roads of “The Directional Hope for New Futures”, they all offered__Not, re-hashing the dead and useless past…

If there’s one lesson we must learn; “It’s the lesson of paying attention to the positive hope, for the new actionable and directional intelligence futures, that may be offered by all beings, living or dead, all throughout history, since hope springs eternal, in the human soul, if one but looks__Is the all pervasively important path to follow and or lead…” I can tell you sincerely, that from all my years of study, I never learned anything from any of those teachers of the negative voices, harping on the ancestral worships, of eras long passed away. I only learned from the greats with the positive messages of hope, for better futures__and I don’t, for a second, think anyone can learn anything from these pessimistic pin-heads, of the negative schools of thought. We learn new and positive paths, and directions of true actionable intelligence__Only from those ‘Great Dreamers of Hope’__For better tomorrows…!!!

It’s now been a thousand years since this plausible ground was first fully ploughed and harrowed, by the great Ibn Sina__and it’s technical name is ‘modal logic’, the logic of future hope, divided into its three major classifications of__Possibility__Probability__and, Necessity, or those thinking states most aligned with Hope__Which is ‘Always future tense’__’Never, past tense…’ And, anyone who doesn’t recognize the necessity of honestly thinking about the future state of humanity’s needs, in a world running short of resources and intellectual talent, is blind, to the realities we face__as a caring species…

So, my major suggestion is to thoroughly investigate what ‘innate modal logic’ truly is, and who of history were its greatest proponents. As a clue, these famous orators and oratory writers have existed in all ages, and were finally brought to its highest levels in the three main orators, Gandhi, Kennedy and King, yet they’d never have achieved the level of actionable and directional intelligence they achieved, if they hadn’t learned the extreme importance of ‘The Modal Logic of Hope’. And, where did this mostly come from…? It came from the study of every positive logic student who ever studied the positive logic greats, from the beginning of time, but it’s truly not even a scholarly learning process__It’s the truly innate functioning mechanics of all human minds’ deep inner core, if they but recognize__the “dead-negatives” must all be canceled__to see the possible, probable and necessary “positive hopes”, for the better, future, possible state actions, and directions, of all humankind…

My studies never taught me a thing, until I discovered my own path of hope, and all the greats of history, who taught this same directional path of actionable intelligence and wisdom… The ‘possible’ futures’ social directions, teach the present__Everything__The past’s ‘negative-impossible’ directions for any social futures, teaches the present__Nothing…!!!

I think we better study the modal logicians, or at least, start using our own innate modal logics__Perceptronic logic__The Simple Innate Ratio-Logic of, Better Hoped-For, and Self-Sovereignly Created Futures…!!! Don’t you…???

Tribute To Our "New Deal..."

TRANS-MODERNITY is KEY...

2010-01-26T12:06:00.000-08:00

Peirce and Latin American "razonabilidad": Forerunners of Transmodernity, by Fernando Zalamea(I've followed him for years...) Link to full article...

After Modernism and Postmodernism, Transmodernism has been advocated as a more faithful coining for our plastic and transient age. Introduced by the Spanish philosopher Rosa María Rodríguez Magda, the term "Transmodernity" –both diachronic and methodological- hopes to reintegrate many awkward postmodern differentials, to balance some supposed breaks with more in-depth sutures, to counter relativism with a topological logic where some "universal relatives" provide invariants beyond the flux of transformations. In many ways, Peirce’s architectonic system of philosophy included already most of the salient features of Transmodernity, a situation which perhaps explains the unusual relevance of Peirce’s thought in the beginning of a new millennium. In fact, Peirce’s system is essentially topological, open to all sorts of continuous transformations (pragmatic maxim, triadic semiotic, classifications of sciences, synechism, etc), and the system is particularly able to represent a bimodal net (Petitot) of both differentials and invariants, providing a full understanding of the TRANS prefix. On the other hand, a steady tradition of Latin American thought at the beginning of XXth century has advocated the importance of some sort of "razonabilidad" (term introduced by the Uruguayan philosopher Carlos Vaz Ferreira, merging "razón"/reason and "sensibilidad"/sensibility) which must explore the borders (TRANS) of thought. A subcontinent fully traversed by change, Latin America has been able to construct various sophisticated synthetic fabrics, weaving autonomous and foreign threads, where the social and cultural transits of the region have acquired some of the highest artistic expressions of the XXth century. Beyond Postmodernist skepticism towards reason and universality, both Peirce’s system and Latin American TRANS culture help to reinterpret universals as partial invariants of a logic of change, where the borders of reason and sensibility appear as objects of reason in their own right. The important crisis revealed by Postmodernism (impossibility of unique perspectives, impossibility of cutting out antinomies, impossibility of stable hierarchies, etc.) can nevertheless be well understood using a continuous geometrical logic of reason and sensibility, open both to changes and invariances. This short article is intended as a programmatic one, pointing out the possible relevance that some non-standard pragmatic thinking (Peirce’s "pragmaticism", Latin America’s "razonabilidad") may have for our Transmodern epoch. The article is divided in four sections: (i) Transmodernity; (ii) Peirce’s system; (iii) Latin America’s TRANS essayists; (iv) A sought gluing for our epoch.

TRANS-MODERNITY is KEY...(continued...)

The Memory to Senses Continuum Is A Violation of Q.M. & T.U.P…

2010-01-13T19:28:00.000-08:00

The violation I intend to address is the embeddedness logics of motions and information paths’ preservations, absolutely rationally required to exist in the perceptual matrix of minds, and the chiral geometry of, which is absolutely rationally required to violate both the laws of quantum mechanics, and the uncertainty principle__To function. As the diagram below states; “Absolute truths and knowledge exist within these embeded logics”, and these imbeddednesses cause all the incompletenesses of our knowledge systems. Iff, this be true, is it possible to arrive at the mathematical proofs of these quantum and uncertainty violations? I’ll further state, we have other direct analogies of these same violation processes, and embedded hidden variables of motion and informations, in the human bio-cells, chemistry and the psychology of our foreign exchange markets. Is rational and logical necessity enough for a proof of what is stated and drawn…? Can these rational necessities prove the Continuum Hypothesis…? I think they can…

And that’s just what the above graphic implies, and that is it’s all like reason being rationalized to logic, to me, or knowing that; "The rational esthetic necessity of all emotions, is identical to justice and liberty for all of humanity", achieveing the same. I'd say this is also a pretty good analogy of the conceptual processes of perception. And this is the very key to the quantum mechanics of super-positioning I was getting at with my first post and graphic, on this thread, and all that’s been mentioned on ‘East Meets West Logic’, as well. The only scientific way to explain perception's ability to unite right and left hemisphere knowledges and concepts, especially of memory mapping to perception and concepts, is to realize the mind does work as a quantum super-positioning computer, at the photon's, boson's, etc., levels of concept mechanics. So, you Leskey have actually stumbled into the very heart of what I've all along, when I've had the chance to mention it, been talking about__The heart and center of QCD(quantum chromo-dynamics), and the uncertainty principle's true mechanics, by the very rational necessity of memory maintaining the quantum continuum's continuity(wave super-positioning) link(inter-communication abilities) for an entire lifespan__otherwise memory couldn't stay linked to perception at will, all our lives. To me this is the most important realization physics can make. I discovered it about six months ago. Thanks for reminding me what my true mission is__The physics' quantum proofs of rationally necessary unification of all quantum particle/wave/field motions and the physical facts of their actual violation of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle...

Iff all can just see the absolutely rational necessity of the memory to conception mapping, to the perception continuum's true continuities, then we've a clear vision inside the entire uncertainty principle and QCD, which at the most innate level, is thoroughly positively continuously linked, throughout our lives. Thus, the uncertainty principle has a certain real mechanical feature positively seeable by us, just as my signature states; "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. And, this is at the same time, a solid violation of the quantum state’s required continuous motions, as thus far scientifically realized and accepted, yet may be the stored state matrix of centered and fixed point(micro-black holes at center of protons…?) motions, for the entire bio-life of us simple beings. And, it’s also a clear violation of not being able to see the momentum and position of the particle wave, when in fact, it absolutely is a rational necessity for it to be permanently stored in a fixed state of no more than a cycloidic angular motion spin state__completely recallable at any desired moment, by the bio-will of innate being__and must be a fixed point state, else how could will know where to find it?(qcd black holes…? Surface of protons, quarks, etc…?) In other words, bio-beings actually have full control over this memory recall aspect of quantum mechanics and what’s been thought to be the uncertainty principle__yet, we certainly do have the power to violate this principle, any moment__at will__by our very own freest of free-wills__to recall almost any past memory state intuition, or almost any memory state concept…

We, as bio-quantum physical beings are pretty amazing. Scientists say we can’t know position and momentum with certainty__yet we daily violate this uncertainty, with the absolute certainty of will, to any action, at any moment we choose, to move the continuum of mind’s storage matter around, from place to place, or memory to perception or concepts__whatever__at will. We are the daily violators of the quantum laws of nature and physics, thus giving us the ability to see the macro results, from the micro actions, of our very own quantum choices. So, lil’ ol’ bio-human choice, all by its lonesome, violates both the laws of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle__At the mind’s quantum state level. If this ain’t a rationally necessary proof of violation__I don’t know what is. We have the power, as simple bio-beings, to move space/matter/wave energy motions__At least, at our micro field/matter bio-being levels__and I’m not even counting all our macro bio-being level violations…

I’m looking for serious feedback, in all this quantum mind matrix theorizing__especially since it’s ‘the hard problem’ of most all recent AI scientific philosophical research, as well as most all cognitive psychological AI research. Thanks in advance…

Premonitions = Pre-Cognitions...

2010-01-13T19:22:00.000-08:00

Premonitions are pre-cognitions of events to come, which in the eyes of the West are the foolish goal of 'Destroy The Terrorists.' One's wisdom, when totally viewed from the highest advantage point, would quickly see the vanity of this vision. The West thinks the terrorists are acting on a religious premonition__They are wrong. The terrorists are acting on the will to live a lil'. If the West sincerely listened to the whole intellectual argument, they'd find terrorism is not about religious will, but the will of poverty, crying out to a deaf West. Until the West awakens to the truth of the terrorist problem, being at base, a poverty problem__The West is acting on a false premonition, or pre-cognition of false will, at base. This is much the problem of all modern thinking mentality's base problem. Being born into false ideologies, one finds it extremely difficult to see the forest for the trees. Pre-cognitions have been scientifically considered false premises to base any thought on, yet all governmet ideology functions on nothing but its false premonitions of the deeper under-lying facts, of the over-development of under-development__which has taken place over the last 50+ years. Oh, should the West ever awaken to the truth of its own real actions, on the greater world of increasing poverty, created by the West, they'll be in for quite a shock...

I'm well aware of the problems, from the very bottom of the poverty canopy, to its Western created top__Yet our foot soldiers of truly better ideas and solutions are few and far between, Even getting people to recognize the true problem, being one of massive poverty, which stirs the emotions, desires and passions of so many, is yet seen as immaturity, when in fact, it's the true reality of all strife, in this otherwise wonderful world__but how is a world to be awakened, when it's youth believe in the ideology of self-improvement, when systems' improvement, is what's truly needed. Youth has always thought this passionate way, since recorded by the Greeks, the European Enlightenment period, on into the American Revolution era, and extending into the French and English revolutionary periods__Yet every time, it took systems' evolution solutions, to quell the angers, on all sides. Yet, were it not for youth's rebellious spirit, maybe none of the modern developments of our cherished liberty evolutions would never have taken place. But, youth must see through the idealogical evolutions of its youthful passions, and recognize, it's always been system's evolutions__That's always saved the day, just as the French, or even the Chileans had to destroy the youth movements, to bring the needed systems' orders back into the fore, to save everyone's desired will to live a lil'...

History is always on the side of the higher intellectual canopy__When all is finally said and done... It always will be__As it's the only logical necessity of survival__Possible...

TIME FOR A NEW “NEW DEAL”

2009-12-30T12:15:00.001-08:00

This is an older article by Marshall Auerback, but one of the best about what was done by FDR, and what should now be done.

But consider the historic precedents. In the words of Professor Paul Davidson:

Let us look at a historical example where if this type of “what will cost to the tax payer and/or the economy?” question were asked, one of the most desirable government policies would never have been undertaken. At the Bretton Woods conference it was recognized that the European nations would need significant aid to help rebuild their economies after the war. Keynes estimated that the need would be between $12 and $15 billion. U.S. representative Harry Dexter White indicated that Congress could not ask the taxpayers to provide more than $3 billion. Accordingly, the Keynes Plan was defeated at Bretton Woods, and the Dexter White proposals were adopted:

Suppose that in 1946 it was recommended that U.S. give a gift of $13 billion dollars over four years to various European countries to help them rebuild their war-ravaged economies (in 1940s current dollars, this sum would be well over $150 billion in 2007 dollars). Obviously if Dexter White was correct, the Congress would never have approved the Marshall Plan. Since the Marshall Plan did not reveal in advance that it would provide foreign governments $13 billion over a period of four years, Congress approved the Marshall Pan. The Marshall Plan gave foreign nations approximately two percent of the United States’ GDP each year for four years. Was the Marshall Plan costly to U.S. taxpayers and the U.S. economy?

The statistics indicate that, during the Marshall Plan years, for the first time in history the U.S. did not experience a serious economic slowdown immediately after a war. And this despite the fact that federal government expenditures on goods and services declined by approximately 57 percent between 1945 and 1946. Furthermore, four years after World War II, federal government expenditure was still approximately half of what it had been in 1945.

When the U.S. emerged from World War II, the federal debt was more than 100 percent of the GDP. Accordingly, there was great political pressure to reign in federal government spending to make sure that the federal debt did not grow substantially. Clearly, then, it was not “Keynesian” deficit spending that kept the U.S. out of recession in the immediate post-World War II years.

What was the cost of the Marshall Plan to the U.S. economy and the U.S. taxpayer? In 1946, the GDP per capita was 25 percent higher than it had been in the last peace years before the War. GDP per capita continued to grow during the Marshall Plan years. Despite giving away two percent of U.S. GDP, American residents (and taxpayers) experienced a higher standard of living each year. – (Paul Davidson, “How to Solve the US Housing Problem and Avoid a Recession: A Revived HOLC and RTC” - Schwartz Center For Economic Policy Analysis: Policy Note, January 2008)
(Continue...)

Intra-Objective Communication of the Subjective…

2009-12-19T13:39:00.000-08:00

Hi SB, good post. I’m trying to find a compliable ground of communication between your ideas of, let’s just use Lesley’s term__altruism, to generally represent part of your ideas, as your geometric ideas are not in dispute with my ideas__to show possible areas of union between your totalities of ideas and mine.

We need a middle ground of passing right brained altruistic ideas into the pragmatic and practical ground of left brained logical, social and material reality. This is why I’ve so often mentioned ‘esthetics’ as the idea that can convert the right brain volitions, altruism, etc., into left brained values of liberty, etc., which are compatible and compliable with left brained mixed pragmatism, yet a more incentivized right brained altruism, and a less incentivized left brained greed, than we presently have. What I’m meaning is a method of wedding infinite psychology, the objective substrate of science, into a more finite possibility of true social improvement, possibly through a new intra-objective communication of the subjective, without losing any of the value of the subjective contributions to social reality.

I think we are both looking for a universal algorithm of both geometry and evolution, which is fully compatible with both hemisphere’s of the minds. The algorithm must be capable of passing right brained psychology into left brained reality__in other words, how do infinite intuitions plug into finite concepts? Imo, this algorithm is more solvable at the international actions level of the interactions of nations, than as a personal algorithm, since nations’ epistemology has reduced the complexity to less terms involved. At this level there are three major methods of solving differences, 1.politics, 2.money, and 3.war. Of course, the method that relates universally from the international level to the personal is 1.the political__and I don’t think the personal-political has yet been explored thoroughly enough, by us or anyone else, as a real solution. I think it may allow us access to the universal algorithm we are seeking.

Selfless-Semi-Altruistic Government --> E=1/5X --> The Geometry of Incentivized Liberty…

100% Altruism = No Altruism__So, the solution must be a semi-systemic solution --> E=1/5X…

The old method was Pareto’s 80%-20% law, of poverty to wealth ratio. Presently, it’s about 90%-10% market law, of poverty to wealth ratio. The selfless-semi-altruistic government of a fully geometric incentivized liberty, would be about a 60%-40% law, of middle-class well-being of all, to wealth ratio__A much fairer and sensible ratio…

The E=1/5X ratio of selfless-semi-altruistic government is a public owned market system, in competition against private owned free-market greed, to allow public and private market laws to be sliding time scale changed, to the 60%-40% ratio over ten years__to work the magic of the most for all, and the esthetic best order possible__as a partially incentivized system is absolutely necessary to rescue all citizens from the horrors of a possible totalitarian communism, down the road__as history clearly shows, any nation can easily evolve into the despised totalitarianisms, as even past democracies have…

We must get America, and the rest of the world back to a sensible scientific methodology of actionable intelligence, or all our gooses are cooked__Mother Goose in the nuclear frying pan, ain’t a pretty picture, but that’s where we’re headed, if we don’t wake up…

The sliding time scaled laws, I’m referring to, must have real teeth__that means a minimum absolute fine of 10% of total gross value of businesses and corporations not complying__Otherwise, we have no chance of any form of semi-altruistic-government, what-so-ever…

Welcome to the future…

The Universal Spiritual Geometry of Nature…

2009-11-14T12:44:00.001-08:00

Universal values of nature and naturalism…
The rhetorical triad__’Ethos’, ‘Pathos’, ‘Logos…’
The power of invalid validity…
Private language abstract-beliefs have the validity of existence…
Academics’ and science’s prejudice of universal values…
Science, excluding universal values, excludes science, and invalidates science…
Academics’, excluding universal values, excludes academics, and invalidates academics…
Values, excluding science, exclude values of science…
The mentalities of methods…
Proper and improper methods…
Bad method obliterates judgment…
The experiential method is far too fallible…
The scientific method is far less fallible…
Prejudiced values vs. prejudiced science…
1. 1st Philosophy__Universal Values__Metaphysics…
2. 2nd Philosophy__Universal Science__Mixed Metaphysics and Particularity…
3. 3rd Philosophy__Particular Science__’Closed Methodology…’
4. 4th Philosophy__Universal Unification Attempts and Failure…
5. 5th Philosophy__Final Unification__’Open ‘Methodicity…’

A New Understanding of Methodology vs. ‘Methodicity…’

If one just carefully looks at how I’ve premised this post from, ‘The Universal Spiritual Geometry of Nature…’ to ‘A New Understanding of Methodology vs. Methodicity…’, one should be able to detect the problem we are all rolling around in here at ToeQuest, in trying to unify ideas, without a proper method to do so. The first ideas to understand are the thus far non-clarity of mentalities’ order of progression in history, which is mentioned last, under the numbered headings. Looking back over history, one would realize mentalities were first organized under a first philosophy of the people’s universal values, or what they early on termed metaphysics, as that was just the natural progression of mentalities’ history.

But, when they started developing particular ideas in depth, they ran into a conflict in their first philosophy, and found they needed to extend its definition and content, to account for particularities, they could not universalize, such as number, etc. So, there began the development of a second philosophy of universal science, which was the mixed ideas of metaphysics and particular sciences__as best they could delve into them, with their early crude instruments, but there shortly there-after set in the great schools battles__of which was the true ideas of the times__which has continued to this very day.

The developed crises of the schools of differing thought required a third philosophy to be born, which was the Greek’s early thoughts of methodology, attributed to Thales__One of the seven sages. Thales is given credit by many Greeks as being the first scientist/philosopher. Of course these are very crude sciences of methodology, but they did work for these early people, and some aspects were quite accurate, such as in astronomy and business. The point is, a methodology was necessary to quell the angered passions between the first philosophy and the second philosophy, of the times__and it was Thales’ methodology of science that served this purpose, which is still with us, with refinements__right to this day.

The problem is, that all through the ages of mentalities’ evolution, no-one truly noticed the damage being incurred to first philosophy’s value system, by third philosophy’s methodology__through the drastic separation and prejudice of the collective schools of thought, against universal values. This has been a slow and encroaching process, so slow, it’s been barely detectable, yet we all feel it__but it’s finally been detected, and is being written about, by several authors around the world. When thoroughly understood, in all its damaging actions, one will become aware of the power of its ability to even destroy our needed judgments of ordering proper civil societies__as has been recorded by Peter Alexander Meyers, titled ‘Method and Civic Education’.

Now that we’ve invented and used this third philosophical method for millennia, we are trying to invent a fourth philosophy of unification, which is ending in failure__Because the systems we are trying to unify are of opposite groundings. That is the first philosophy is of open grounding, or background independence, and the second and third philosophies of science are of a closed methodology and grounding. These three systems put us in the position of the ancient Greeks trying to unite fire and ice. How’s it to be done, when the one always destroys the other…?

This is why I’m suggesting a fifth philosophical system, I’m titling ‘Methodicity’, which is an entirely new method of unification of closed and open systems__or the unification of closed methodology and open methodology. Of course, when one scans the internet, this isn’t a new word, but I’m giving it the special definition job, of uniting the opposites of closed and open systems__that is, the extremes of opposites, into new lucid conceptualisms and common sense__Which I’m really interpreting as no more than ‘Science With Values__True Universal Values...’

This would be my contribution to ‘The Universal Spiritual Geometry of Nature…’ I’ll just let this post sink in a bit, and get back to its implications later. For now, I’d recommend reading the linked article above by, Peter Alexander Meyers, titled ‘Method and Civic Education’… One can not use the old ‘Closed ‘Methodologies’ to unify the world’s many differing ideas__Imo, one must use this new ‘Open ‘Methodicity’, to unify the many differing ideas, of Earth’s many opinions and facts…

The Crisis of Personal Consciousness and Civic Consciousness...

2009-11-14T12:41:00.000-08:00

Everyone wants to write as though they were exempt from our problems of civic consciousness, yet are thoroughly blind to their own personal consciousness crisis. Take a good hard look at Sandoz’s article; It’s about no-one on Earth being exempt from the globes massive problems of histories mentalities of consciousness evolution__This includes the Buddhist who improperly interprets love, as nothing more than the self-love lies of his/her own experiential egos__as well as all educated and academic intellectuals who improperly interpret knowledge, as nothing more than the self-knowledge lies of his/her own ego experiences__No-one on Earth exempt from the self-demon of fallible experiential methods of false knowledges and interpretations of...

It was long ago proved there was only one method to avoid the fallible pitfalls of experiential love of the self-ego__And that just happens to have been the scientific method, put forward by the middle period Persians. We can all indulge our personal Experiences until the ends of our sad lives, but the true light of day will never be encountered__Until one realizes, only the scientific method of grounded proofs is possible of finding and knowing any truths about either personal consciousness or public consciousness__And that takes a great deal of understanding, about “Breaking on through, to the other side”, as mentioned in Jim Morrison’s words. Most are completely unaware of what this truly means__It’s much more than the simple experiential worship of dead gurus and fallacious academics and pseudo-religious leaders. It’s understanding the honest truths within all the lies of these same people__Seeing the real civic consciousness created by these same lies, that actually creates the firm social fabric, which holds all hope and society together__as a functioning social entity.

Yes, the preacher, teacher, academic, intellectual, businessman, lover or and greedomites all have their evil ways and lies, but the point all miss is just what Ellis Sandoz and Kolakowski speak of__That all and extreme important essence spirit of social consciousness, that pervades all societies__In good times, as well as bad times. And, it’s these bad times where the social/civic spirit of nations must be restored__and it won’t be restored by individual over-worship of the personal ego-experiences, when it’s truly the social fabric of instutions and systems that really in need of the repairs. So, throw away the idiosyncratic self-worships of self-egos and all historical egoistic gurus and other such creatures, and see for the first time in your lives__The true civic consciousness…

How Does A Particle/Wave See, Hear and Talk To A Particle/Wave…?

2009-11-14T12:36:00.000-08:00

1.The fundamental scientific mechanics of logical a priori necessity__First…

2.Logic__The necessary scientific method of mind before thought…

3.Experience and necessity__Action first…

4.Man/Woman/Child__Nature’s only scientifically able creatures…

5. The triadic universal is the scaling agent of the dyadic opposites__into the new common sense...

6.The soul’s invalidity__Its historical evolution to invalidity…

7.Spirit and intuition without geometry is not spirit and intuition…

8.The physiology of logical necessity__Physical organ required…

9.The necessary a priori__Matter first, to contain images/thought…

10.The axiom of necessary liberty…

11.Individual freedom necessitates moral liberty…

12.Mind on a pedestal__No__Logical brain mechanics first…

13.The logical brain/mind mechanics of geometric imaging…

Are we all in a fog of thinking we are grounded, when we are truly not…? What is your fundamental ground__Before first thought…? I think we can explore all of the physical and mental universe, by just honestly answering these questions__And I do mean, all of quantum and relative mechanics, as well as all of brain, mind and thought mechanics__from all emotions to all scientific methods and answers. It’s simply a very short distance from quantum mind to all of quantum and relative physics__as a matter of fact, I’ll simply state, ‘It’s one and the same…’

When physics can answer the title question, we’ll(the general concensus) grant it true ground__But not until… The skeptic holds all the cards in this question alone__and physics, philosophy and psychology will always be out on an invalid limb, until they venture a truly grounded logical answer to this first, and most important fundamental question__Basically, “What is mind, and how does it work…?”

I’ll leave everyone to ponder the question, and the few clues I’ve posted, and return later…

A Ten Year Model Of Change...

2009-11-14T12:32:00.000-08:00

The Inverse Theorem of Value__Iff Capitalist System Incentive Mechanics’ Value Is Transferred From Commodities, Goods, Services, Prices, Wages and Profits, to Fiat Money System Law, Real Wealth Can Be Created for All World Citizens…

Substrate / | \ Superstrate
Moral Science / | \ Contract Science
Mind / | \ Anti-Mind
Metaphysics / | \ Epistemics__Extra-Rational Thought / | \ Rational Thought
The God of How Much Information Man Can Process, Against Collected Information__Geo-Bio-Resistance to Bio-Processing
China's Dead Debt Stabilizes Her Live Debt

Pseudo-education has geared us to look at and into the substrate to procure our wants and needs, while in fact, all this does is produce a super-structure__We now know is destroying the entire living system. For millennia the substrate of the human soul has sustained us well, but now we have reached the pinnacle/apex of its proper functioning__where what's stored in the innate human soul is now castrating our intellectual intelligence. This is why I'm concentrating so much on the superstrate's influence over the substrate.

What we've inadvertently never looked at, is how the innate human soul scientifically functions__yet this is possible, if one just takes the time to look. I'm simply talking about when mind becomes anti-mind, with the evolution of complexity, due to nature's natural resources being depleted__to the point innate human mind and soul must change__or die. The substrate of human soul no longer serves the purpose it did__when resources were plentiful__yet the same superstrate information entered into soul, memory and intellect is not changing on a large enough mind domain, due to battles between minds and anti-minds, metaphysics' extra-rational thought, and epistemics' rational thought__and the even greater battles between moral science and contract science.

This is all being controlled by the God of how much information man can process, against all the collected information controlled by and controlling him__through the greater geo-bio-resistance 'god' to his bio-processing abilities, and all being reflected back into these bio-minds__through the superstrate's superstructure process of China's dead debt stabilizing her live debt processes__against our pseudo-school's outdated substrate interpretations of. China's leading the way with over thirty+ years of government/market integrations__while the West's lost substrate soul and mind tries to figure the entire mess out__without realizing it must process soul and mind as China does__Superstrate to substrate and back to superstrate, on and on, again and again. It's the old 'I Ching' middle way, just as ProfPat has posted about their Trigrams__The triadic understanding rules the world, as it's always looking at the world holistically, when power is not blinded, by over-concentrations on the substrates of pseudo-educations' falsehoods...

We'd soon better awake to the proper soul and mind functions of the superstrate into the substrate__then back out to the new super-structures that are truly being built right in front of our own very blind eyes__China is attempting a 5th generation environmental policy. That means skipping the industrial mess of the West. Of course, right now, it doesn't look too promising, as they are truly the dirtiest nation on Earth__But at least, that's the multi-year plan of the central planning committee. At the least, they are beginning to open their triadic eyes...

The Continuum of True Interpretation and Meaning…

2009-11-14T12:28:00.000-08:00

Tried this years ago, when building race-cars__25 concepts of maths --> Process complete functions to the universal operations of race-car under actual track conditions__Near impossible. Also tried many other multiple and variable complex concept maths à Process complete functions, from these particulars to the continuum of universal actuals__Near impossible. Yet used the imaginal intuitive universal side of the mind to visually see the entire particulars’ process in its favorable genericity__Quite accurately…

Worked forty years in Pythagorean and Archimedian geometries, intuitions and logics --> Processed every day, first from intuition, to logic__and finally relied on math__yet could then exceed the maths with my acquired knowledge of the universality’s genericities of the particulars, i.e., exceeding safety capacities, approaching the breaking strengths of the metals worked with. Always in competition with others, to exceed their abilities, without breakage__A razor’s edge use of the universal imaginal intuitive continuum, beyond others’ daring to copy. 40 years of exceeding safety capacities of metals and machinery, and not one breakage__So I well know how intuition and imagination can be pushed beyond all recognized safety margins. I mention this as examples of how efficient the guessing universal continuum of mind actually can be__Herein lies the center of creative imagination…

Yet, I never could have accomplished that record of non-breakage without respecting the basic geometries and maths involved, then further calculating to the edge of its breaking strengths, with intuitive guessing maths, to ride that razor’s edge. I did this in all fields of endeavor, which were many, cars, boats, motorcycles, cranes, snowmobiles, airplanes and guns, etc… Even in the most punishing area of racing both roundy-round and drag, I never threw a rod, yet won many state and local championships in all these areas. Looking back over my life, those calculations and successes seem almost impossible to achieve, yet it happened…

So, there’s more to using this universal continuum of intuition, geometry and maths__than first meets the eye and mind… I think we can process all particulars into universals, if we are only willing to push the envelope__It only requires a goal, and a wish to do so__At least that’s my experience. All the above was accomplished with the universality of genericity of the intuitive continuum…

The Universal Inverse Theorems of Value, Information and Knowledge…

2009-11-14T12:24:00.000-08:00

Long have we searched for the most grounded ideas to solve the planet’s many problems. Many an education system, technologies, value systems, philosophies and ideas have been developed, cast aside and new methods evolved and tried__But what makes them all inadequate…? The old world tried to universalize knowledge, yet hadn’t enough particular knowledge to complete their job. The middle ages’ world tried to utilize both universal and particular knowledges, yet ended in the many conflicts of the many schools of thought. Today, we try the specializations of all the former schools of thought, almost ignoring the older universal schools of ideas, and the middle ages many debates, and lack of solutions, then and now__while the world wide web evolves toward a new universalization of the many schools of knowledge, almost unrecognized, by the many specialist schools of thinking. Might this all be no more than people’s thoughts just being out of time with the true realities of the whole spiritual and physical evolution…? Mustn’t the solution be what we here at ToeQuest are attempting to do__Create a theory of everything…? And, wouldn’t that everything be recognizing the entire spectrum of uniting the older universal thinking with the middle ages’ particular and universal debates, with the new specializations__being newly united also with the universal design’s evolution of the world wide web’s almost unrecognized process…?

Just let me show one particular instance__Physicists, scientists and many others think that a new energy source will solve most of the world’s problems over-night. Yet, how many truly realize how quickly the world’s major corporations, would turn any new energy source to their own personal ownership and profit__Thus putting the world right back where it was before this new energy source were found or invented…? Imo, it’s always money and law__But, let’s look deep into the values, information and knowledge systems everyone is drawing from, to see if we may find some clues to why people do think out of time with reality…

I’ve heard many speak of emotional and intellectual maturity, but are such states of mind even possible…? My definition of emotional maturity would be to know the emotional intelligences of every human on Earth__Now, is that even possible…? No, of course it’s not, so imo, everyone is required to settle for far less than emotional maturity. Now take intellectual maturity, and again my definition would be to know the intellectual intelligences of every human on Earth__Now, is that even possible…? No of course it’s not, so imo, everyone is again required to settle for far less than intellectual maturity. What I’m getting at is, we must all settle for incompleteness, in whatever endeavor we try__It’s the best the human race is capable of, due to the shear numbers of humanity’s creative realities. Something new and more mature will always come along, as it should, so mother nature leads the show__when one is truly honest about our most basic human capacities. I think this all just has the capacity of making us a bit more humble__If we but realize what we do not, and can not__know…

Now, let’s look at information and see what can be possible, and what can not be possible. In an earlier post I already mentioned the inverse square law of information in relation to understanding, but there’s an even deeper consideration to be made here. What about the inverse proportionality of knowledge from information processes by the number of essence agents involved, in the processing. I’m willing to bet most have never even considered this dynamic, as is clearly laid out in my graphic here: LINK I’ve mentioned much about it in different places before, but only recently realized a universal law could be applied, and here it is__Moral esthetic value is inversely proportional to the number of essence agents used to process the information involved. This simply means if we either do not use all our essence agents to process information, we end with ideas that are far less than the truths of the situation__or if we use too much emotion, and not enough logic, we fail to understand a proper knowledge, and vice versa, if we use too much logic, and not enough emotion, we get the same bad results. I’ve found it best to use all tools at our disposal to do the best job, whether at work, or in our personal emotional and intellectual lives__and I think you’ll find this law bares out.

As a further example of the inverse proportional law above, let’s next apply it to knowledge__And I’ll state it like this: True Knowledge is inversely proportional to the number of schools of ideas processed. The way I’m meaning this to be interpreted is__The more one specializes, the less one knows about the universality of knowledge__and, The more one studies the general universality of knowledge, the less one knows about the particular specialty fields of knowledge. It comes down to that same old problem between Plato and Aristotle__But which is better…? Do we sacrifice the universal for the particular, as most are doing today, or do we sacrifice the particular for the universal…? And then we have the ‘universal and particular’ world wide web…? My opinion is that neither of these is a choice to help us on our path to a possible evolution toward either emotional or intellectual maturity. I only believe in the considered school of doing both, or all at once__But I realize that’s near impossible for most__so we are left in a world with all minds out of time, due to the possibility of time available to study either or both the particular specializations or the universalities of knowledge. Imo, we should all keep this in mind when dealing with the many different spirits, not only on this forum, but in all our life’s dealings…

Everyone differs due to the time circumstances of possibilities allotted to all the different peoples of this extremely diverse planet. I don’t know if this post helps any, but anyway…

Law & True Emotional/Intellectual Maturity of…

2009-11-14T12:12:00.000-08:00

The Inverse Theorem of Value__Iff Capitalist System Incentive Mechanics’ Value Is Transferred From Commodities, Goods, Services, Prices, Wages and Profits, to Fiat Money System Law, Real Wealth Can Be Created for All World Citizens…

The Inverse Theorem of Value__Iff Capitalist System Incentive Mechanics’ Value Is Transferred From Commodities, Goods, Services, Prices, Wages and Profits, to Fiat Money System Law, Real Wealth Can Be Created for All World Citizens…

Hi SB, and in answer to your central question; "How does one behave perfectly morally in a world in which money is required - in which any and every dealing which involves money is (in effect) bad?"(self-perception is deceiving...), It entirely depends on which side of the law one stands on, 'The Moral'__'The Immoral'__'The Amoral'. Look at this again; "The Inverse Theorem of Value__Iff Capitalist System Incentive Mechanics’ Value Is Transferred From Commodities, Goods, Services, Prices, Wages and Profits, to Fiat Money System Law, Real Wealth Can Be Created for All World Citizens…", and please study it closely, as it is the central tenet of the earliest of thought, from the 'Torah', where 'Jehovah/God', was clearly known and thoroughly understood as the 'moral law of the land' of the earliest Jews...

As I stated above it matters most which side of the moral law one stands on, in order to see the spirit of the world's progress, with the truest set of eyes. If one stands on the 'Commodities, Goods, Services, Prices, Wages and Profits' side of the equation, one will always be blinded to the spirit's true mechanics of evolution. One must stand on the 'Fiat Money System Law' side of the equation, and realize it's not as you've always thought, i.e., that it is immoral and amoral. The universal spirit of all's thought is using this same path to guide us toward the final moral law goals, thus the 'Fiat Money System Law' has a moral constitution, which most do not, or will not see__and herein lies the central truth of all evolutionary history of man and his many different law systems'__trials and errors...

We must see thoroughly through this complex system, to it's central simplicity of the theorem I have recently developed, with the help of a continuing epiphany phenomena series, I and many others keep having. The entire facts are given in this new theorem: "The Inverse Theorem of Value__Iff Capitalist System Incentive Mechanics’ Value Is Transferred From Commodities, Goods, Services, Prices, Wages and Profits, to Fiat Money System Law, Real Wealth Can Be Created for All World Citizens…"

Iff, you cross over from the 'immoral visions of law', to the 'moral visions of the amoral law', then all visions and perceptions will be clear__"The doors of perception will be opened, and its windows/lenses will be cleansed..."

Law is not the evil... Law is the good, when made/constructed good...

'Everybody's Some Kinda' Expert...'

2009-11-14T12:00:00.000-08:00

And herein lies the problem. Everyone thinks they are educated to knowledgable levels by being an expert, in some certain field. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are nothing more than informationists of that spectific field. True knowledge requires the cross-disciplinary expertise of an Avicenna or a Peirce, and no-one has knowledge, without this universal view__they're just viewing a very small part of the world. Just look at Plato and Aristotle__a great deal of universal knowledge, but their mistake was narrowing it to specific fields, and not viewing the integration of the whole__Always the problem. True knowledge only exists in the whole__Not the Parts... Parts knowledge is simply information__Yet enough information builds the whole...

This is the trouble with Chomsky__Too much about the parts__Not enough about the whole. He talks constantly of what's wrong with the parts of the world he sees(imo, very little)__But nothing about what the whole can be_can be__Can BE...!!! Please find a new hero__Chomsky ain't it. He's simply the Ross Perot perrot of pseudo-linguistics and pseudo-politics...

Ya know what's amazed me all through the years, is why the world can theorize a gazillion models of physics ideas, yet demand we stick to nothing but the old failed policies of economics, politics and power__instead of having a gazillion models of economics, politics and power. Why is this, do you suppose...?

We all need to realize the dead ideas we are hugging like our new-born children__These are nothing but dead, rotting ideas__Poisoning all minds who cling to these false ideologies. Why can't people see the ideologies poisoning their minds...? The poison about the world, that Chomsky and his ilk spew about the world is obvious hate__and nothing but__Hate of one group against the other__Ain't the way. Study Ibn Sina and Peirce, and you'll find none of this type of hate, as they were educated enough to see the whole__The whole says, "Look at me__I'm free of hate...!!!"

Only when one frees their mind of all__and I mean completely ALL Hate__can one see the truth to guide lil' ol' spaceship Earth into its proper future course. Just think how simple this is__We process all the world's www information with simple web addresses that always preserve information paths. You mean we can't do that simple computerized process with money, politics and power systems? They contain far less information paths to be preserved. I think it's time the world awakens completely from the Hate-Mongers its blindly following__Don't you...???

The Triadic Analytic Esthetic Geometry of Our Universal Emotions of Genericity's SimplicityDimensionality and Proportionality

2009-11-14T11:56:00.000-08:00

The Triadic Analytic Esthetic Geometry of Our Universal Emotions of Genericity's Simplicity__Dimensionality and Proportionality__From the Gentile, to the Projective, to the Factual...

Avicenna made it part way there... Kant made it a bit further... Peirce made it the furthest... We must finish the journey of the triadic whole__subjective/objective/ajective, or the, monojective/bijective/trijective minds' final journey...

Emotions, our most important essence, are much simpler than most have thought them to be__iff looked at, thoroughly, from and with the esthetic, analytic-synthetic a priori__The true triadic self...

Emotions are the primary source of all the energies of our complete mind’s functioning, whether our animal fight or flight instincts, our most aesthetic emotions of compassion and empathy, or our higher emotional foundations under our intellectual and logical states of mind. We’re talking about our primary energy states in all these categories of choices of personalities, attitudes or medium to higher states of mind potentialities. Many have stated for centuries that this metaphysical state of primary energies could not be analyzed__But I see this, so far non-conceptual state of mind, as being analyzable iff we simply see its primary brain state function, before we apply content to it, as being fully possible of analyzability.

When the primary brain state is looked at, which would be our perceptions’ essence agents’ tools, whether passion, pain, reason, compassion, empathy, love, judgment or whatever other state may be involved, at the time of our action’s choices__is subject to nothing more than the use of the powers of this very primary energy. And when we are talking about any energy source, we are simply talking about it capacity for good or bad, happiness or sadness, helping or hurting, loving or hating, on and on, yet it has and implies parameters of these mentioned choices and actions__which would be the proportionalities of energies applied to the many different situations we encounter. Just as a simple example; We may use our gentlest of emotional states of love toward another, with the least proportion of energy applied to the person our love is projected toward, even though this may take a tremendous amount of energy to control our will’s involuntary action, at the time__while at other times this state of low intensity energy may be a naturally flowing symmetry, often granted by the outside our personal control of energy flows. It’s still understandable as a low proportionality of energy applied.

On the other hand, we may want to excite another couple to a certain action for the day’s activities, and we’d apply a large proportion of energy, with our personality and attitude, to entice that particular couple to be enthused to bid our wishes, as we may have planned a very exciting outing, for everyone to enjoy, as I’ve often done, when bored of the atmosphere of the local area I may have been in. All I’m showing is the simple proportional emotional energy use we may have all applied at differing times in our lives. This would mean our basic epistemic agents of perception, as I see all essence agents, as being housed in perception, are actually acting through a geometric process of distributing energy to our willed actions proportionately differing at differing times and circumstances. Of course, this is just a simple explanation, but many are un-aware of the basic mechanics of pure emotional energy, and I think it’s very important to see all the varied dimensions of actions the emotional mind is actually capable of.

When one realized it simple energy choices, of actions’ choices, to control our emotions, we need never be trapped in our boredoms, excess desires or greed, because the free-knowledge-choices of actions is much more fun, than all the fulfillments of possessions could ever accomplish. A pure freedom of our mind’s actions’ choices, knowingly, is the most fulfilling of the spirits possibilities__and is available to anyone who is shown this simple path__”Put the body in action/motion and the mind will follow.” It is no more complex than this simple statement. There’s no amount of possessions or money in the world, that can surpass the mind’s knowledge of its own freedom’s possibilities of free-will actions’ Possibilia. I’ve seen so many relationships go sour for the simple reason of not realizing the power of empowering the body’s actions, to have the minds follow, it almost uncountable__and for no other reason than not knowing__The body controls the mind’s states of happiness__Do something__Anything__You’ll like it...

I’ve only offered a simple mind map of happiness’s possible actions, but imo, this is the fundamental state of The Triadic Analytic Esthetic Geometry of Our Universal Emotions of Genericity's Simplicity__Dimensionality and Proportionality__From the Gentile, to the Projective, to the Factual...

The Magic Demon of Self-Interpretations à Isomorphic Geometric Mapping vs. The Ego…?

2009-11-14T11:49:00.000-08:00

Is it possible to know anything without geometry…? No…!!! Why…???

The innate geometry of mind must map All information to perception, conception, cognition, understanding and or memory, from the outside world__First…

Is it possible to know anything about self, I and or ego__Without outside information__First…???

It first matters what one defines as outside. If one defines outside as outside of body__Then it is not possible to know about self, I and or ego__But with outside information__First… If one defines outside as outside of direct and indirect perception__then is is possible to know about self, I and or ego__Without outside information__First__But the only information knowable will be of perception’s tools of agency__Only…!!! This means one’s ability to only know the agent tools functions, yet with no content__As all content is required to come from outside perception, conception, cognition, understanding and or memory__Always…!!!

Why can’t the mind, intuition, creativity, imagination, memory, spirit or any other possible innate agent produce information and or knowing knowledge…?

The mind/brain is a mere simple tool/agent of greater bio-nature and geo-spheres__And functions only in conjunction with greater bio-nature, and the geo-spheres. It contains no material to process__Until bio-nature and the geo-spheres/fields have isomorphically mapped its information into mind, soul, brain, spirit, perception, conception, cognition, intuition, creativity understanding and or memory, etc.__Always…!!!

Why can’t spirit do all the above…?

What is spirit but the geo-sphere’s fields, and the bio-sphere’s fields…??? Answer__Nothing else but…!!! Nothing else is known to exist…!!! Otherwise, one is just plain and simply stumbling around in the ‘Magic Demon of Self-Interpretations of Pure Egoism’. Only the necessary understanding of Nature’s Isomorphic Geometric Mapping of Innate Information__From the outside geo- and bio-spheres__Into Oneself__Prevents the false mistakes of Egoism…!!!