Monday, June 8, 2009

A Universal Philosophy of Pure Liberty, Natural Money, Aesthetic Ecology, and Value Validity Proofs of Peirce’s Pragmaticism and Abduction…

Truth in Virtue of Intentionality, Or, The Return of the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction, by Robert Hanna
“CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE” by Josiah Royce, with W. Fergus Kernan

(Note)Extremely clear and concise ideas and graphs’ explications presented. (Exact Logic = Numbers = Analogical Graphs = A Universal Analogical Language of Genericity = Possibility of A Perceptual Wisdom of Analogical Pragmaticism)

“The upshot of the first phase of the proof(pragmaticism) is that logical goodness is goodness of inference and goodness of inference, which is validity, is to be understood as conformity to an ultimate end. This advances the proof because Peirce is interested in the nature of belief or assent insofar as it is voluntary. Voluntary belief is belief that is subject to the check of logical criticism through the criticism of inference. Since inference is a purposive activity which controls belief, belief in general must have a purpose. A reasonable conjecture, which Peirce makes, is that the nature of belief can be uncovered by finding out its purpose [36] and that its purpose can be understood by investigating the aim of reasoning in general.” Jeremiah McCarthy

Many following this blog may ask, “Why is he tying so much philosophy and physics in with his economics?” That’s a reasonable question and here’s the answer. Twenty-five years ago, I discovered an entirely new economic model possibility, for our ailing world. After several years of relaying my ideas, I came to realize I possessed no real(exact logic) mathematical proofs for my system, so I started searching, but where was I going to look, as I knew the world’s mathematics systems were so corrupted? Thinking it over, I decided physics may offer the best shot, because I could see the graphical models of their maths, but this proved a dead end as well, just as economic maths(the ergodicity problem, understood better at this site) had, earlier. Then I decided to return to my much earlier studies of philosophy, as I knew they contained the largest library of laws and mathematical ideas’ histories. Since I knew I couldn’t find the information elsewhere, I started re-stumbling through the past’s greatest and not-so-greatest philosophers.

The earliest ones turned out to be too metaphysical. Others, such as many Pythagoreans were far too secretive. I figured they must have known more. They really did, but I didn’t then recognize it, at first and second go-rounds. This search lasted from the mid-eighties to the present day, yet along the way I started seeing certain logical patterns emerging in my conceptualizations of what I was researching, especially in mathematical logics of all sorts, but still couldn’t put a true universal picture together of the exact math I was seriously looking for. One day, by happen-stance(first sign of abduction), I really don’t even know the details, as it was just a chance(yet logical) happening, but anyway, I came across an article, site or post about Charles Sanders Peirce, whom I never remembered at the time, hearing about, even though I later remembered being taught his ideas as a very young child(the mind works in strange ways_gramps was a Peircean as he graduated college when Peirce was at his height, around 1900). The logic of his writing style struck me at once(exacting logic). Who was this guy?

The more I read of his material, the more I wanted to read, as it fit so well with my own reasoning(a lifetime working in exact logic), so the quest began, somewhere in the early 2000’s, not quite sure when, exactly. First, I found his Arisbe site, and consumed every line of text. Knowing this was the largest amount of sound logic and reasoning I’d ever come across, I had to let it settle in. At the time I didn’t know who else could really be trusted to relay more modern analogies and criticisms of Peirce’s ideas, so I just let this line of research set, and returned to more of my economic and physics studies. After joining several academic groups about economics and other related social issues, but unable to further the mathematics needed, with these well educated actors, I stumbled into The Camden Philosophical Society, who just happened to be reading Rescher, who’s thought I learned, was founded on Peirce. One of the members was also a Peircean scholar, so we talked much, and he steered me to other original sources of Peirce’s ideas, yet they were all incomplete. Most only covered his ideas up to the 1880’s, and I was already interested in his later ideas, especially his E-graphs and final logics. Anyway, I got redirected to many links and secondary books, really great ones in Finland, which I’d used as good academic sources(economics mainly) in other areas earlier, but Finland had the largest sources of information on Peirce’s original and later ideas, so I fully consumed everything there___The Commons Dictionary was especially handy for figuring out all of Peirce’s complex terms. I also met a local physicist, who’d done early work based on Peirce’s mathematics, from his geodesic days. He still helps me with certain maths, but lacks the universal math functions I’m really after.

Of course, after intense intellectual work, one needs a break, so I took some time off doing other physical activities. A few months later I returned to my economic and physics projects. After finding a mathematics Post Doctorate from England on one of the forums, who just happened to be extremely brilliant, I decided to study some of the mathematicians he suggested. This was an extensive research covering everyone from the early Indians, Egyptians and Greeks, etc., to Huygens, Euler, Gauss, Boole, Jevons, De Morgan and many, many others, to Schroder, where I stumbled across Charles Sanders Peirce’s name, as one of the most important mathematicians and logicians in history. Most economists, mathematicians, logicians, philosophers and physicists had never heard of him, or at least denied they did, yet I later learned some of their works showed signs of Peirce’s terms and logic symbols. So, I started asking myself what was going on?

Well the story is one for the history books, not yet written, but I won’t go into all the details here, as I’ve already published some about this, and I’ve included many links in my past posts, which explain most of the hidden conspiracy. The point is, after realizing how important this one man is to modern history, space exploration, computer technologies or any of the numerous fields of science and knowledge, I threw myself whole-heartedly into a thorough study of one Mr. Charles Sanders Peirce, as I knew by now if anyone had the exacting mathematical answers I was seeking, it had to be him.

Since you’re probably wondering, by now, what mathematical problem I “was” trying to solve, I’ll not keep you on the hook any longer. It’s the ultimate universal systems’ mechanics actions’ math, whether political, social, economic, legal or philosophical and scientific. No-one in all my wanderings could even come close to giving me a satisfactory answer. Most, even the best PhD mathematicians and physicists, told me such math was impossible, or at the least not yet known, and they doubted it could ever be known, but I wouldn’t take no for an answer, as I’d already attempted such a new system of math myself. I achieved part of it, and the general direction I knew I had to go, but I also was stumped from the early 1980’s until about 2004. In fall and winter ’04-‘05 I discovered that universal quantifier logic was possible, but I only had a vague abductive(of course, at the time, I didn’t know I was using abduction_didn’t even know what it was) idea about it. I could solve for morality first, but couldn’t extend it further at the time, even though this seems rather backward. It’s just the way it happened. It may have just been the strong moralist stances of the groups’ members I was working with over that last two years___that seems very plausible, as the members usually defending my positions were extremely morally bent, in a good direction though.

Now, most would say; “Morality? What are you talking about?” I relayed this idea to a “Global Conference Group” first, without any success, although I knew the idea was sound. Not only couldn’t they understand what I said, they couldn’t even understand the possibility of the world being benignly computerized, in the not-so-distant future, to solve the world’s existing problems. Now, this puzzled me tremendously, as I knew my explanations were very clear. What was it about well-educated people who couldn’t understand basic logic? I’d never given it a thought before, as I’d spent a lifetime working daily in intuition, logics and maths___not even complex systems, yet I could see these people could not wrap their minds around simple logical concepts. I wouldn’t understand this problem until I delved much deeper into Peirce.

Well anyway, after ’04 and ‘05’s forays into the academic groups, my wife decided she wanted to sell our home. We sold, bought a truck and camper to spend winters in Florida, so this took up some of my research time... By this time I’d accumulated a considerable amount of notes, probably a few thousand pages. On the road, I continued editing and researching, but now mainly Peirce, as I knew somewhere in his massive amount of research, the answer was to be found, since he was the most intelligent mind I’d ever come across, by far. And this includes every historical great, as through the years, I’d read and studied them all, so my research since ’04 has been overwhelmingly on Mr. Peirce, and over the last year, nothing but___and that’s ten to twelve hours daily, seven days a week, as I, otherwise, have a completely free schedule.

You may ask, “What was my major clue the answer lied with Peirce?” Not one thing, other than the pragmatic maxim, as I knew just looking at it, it was universal logic, and sound exact logic at that, and that’s just what I was looking for, as I realized all true logic can be converted to math, which I did with the “Pragmatic Maxim”___ “The Triadic Maxim___Any Idea_Arithmetically check all possible effects, against all possible premises, and the combined results, will be the total actions, of the idea.”… And yes, I’d read all his relational logic material, and Zeman’s and Sowa’s E-graph explanations. I even have copies of Peirce’s logic book on this very computer, along with 2500 academic papers, and 25,000 other site links of Peirce, and related materials, as I checked the files about a week ago, to make sure I didn’t exceed hard drive capacity, and crash. I also came across Peirce’s name in Keynes' book, “A Treatise on Probability”, which is also on this computer. And further, I even have Huygens’ original probability logic sketch on this computer___the first truly sound statistical probability logic and math, as verses Beyes, Laplace and Kolmogorov’s special case analytic dyadic drivel when applied to the wrong concepts, such as genericity___Oh it works for special cases of particulars, but it’s not what I was looking for. I needed exacting universal proofs, and theirs just weren’t it.

It’s now been five years since making the first abductive Peirce related logic discovery’s applications, as relates to my quest for a complete universal relational logic and math, and only over the last few months have I assembled enough concepts, to complete my task. I am now ready to begin laying it out. First(see # order next paragraph), I’ll start with an in depth graphical representation of epistemology titled, “An Isomorphic/Ergodic Abductive Model of Aesthetic Perception”. Second, I’ll offer a graph titled, “A Triadic Cartesian Graph of Universal Logic Functions”. Third, will be an explication graph of pure liberty titled, “The Golden Ratio of True/Pure Liberty”. Fourth, will be an explication graph of global/national economics and liberty titled, “The World’s Position___Now…”. Fifth, will be an explication graph of global/national economics titled, “Worst Form of Communist Capitalism”. Sixth, and finally I’ll offer an explication graph of a best possible system, titled, “Best Middle-Way Model Capitalism.” These six graphs will give the complete exact logic proofs of all possible models of personal knowledge, government, law and socio-politico-economic systems’ logical and universal mathematical functions of genericity___from now, to the end of times. At the same time, the graphs will visually prove all of Charles Sanders Peirce’s “Pragmaticism” and “Abduction Logic”. It will all be self-explanatory, but I will offer a bit of contextual help.

Since I have no way at present(problem now solved_next paragraph) of storing these graphs live on the web, as my blog doesn’t allow live loads in my format, please e-mail me for the material at: lloyd.gillespie@gmail.com and I’ll send them ASAP. Format is Microsoft Word Doc(now available in html, if you e-mail me)… May I suggest, you print out and organize these graphs thus; One to three descending down, in the order listed(use numbers on charts, not the chart and graph file name numbers, or order listed above_ #’s are in upper right corners of graphs and diagrams) above, with the fourth under these three. Now, set the fifth and sixth left, and right of the fourth. This gives the best visual observation/explication, in a clear global view, then the following text will make the most sense…

These graphs represent the entire continuum of the thoughts and actions of genericity, and the Golden Ratio clearly represents the entire continuum’s potentials and possibilities of liberty and freedom. These graphs also represent a genericity philosophy of an eclectic ‘utens/docens’ standpoint, i.e., a genericity between the universals and particulars. Genericity is a loose infinite standpoint of finiteness, or simply put, the logical musement standpoint of ‘Mother Wit’ and ‘Common Sensism’. Musement can also be exacting intelligence, when guided by logic. Genericity is the mean ground between universality, and particularity, required to eclectically, and thoroughly, understand all three, or as the Pythagoreans stated, “The Law of Mean Terms” - “The Triadic Principle”, is required to explain the extremes thoroughly. Only the nefarious analyticity of Aristotle ruined this beautiful triadic system of right thought, as only triadic genericity, properly joins the particulars and the universals, the one and the many, breadth and depth. Genericity is the isomorphism between universality and particularity___Exact and total truth requires the ‘Included Middle’ not the ‘Excluded Middle’ of Aristotle__Mathematicians require genericity to achieve the necessary isomorphisms of totalities, as modern arithmetic history has clearly shown. They need not be guided by the defunct ideas of ancient philosophers, dressing serious ideas in false clothes. Many mathematicians know the facts well, as they look into either universality of particularity, or particularity of universality, with genericity, to find either particularity of universality, or universality of particularity, then they unite them into exacted solutions, sometimes producing universal laws and formulas, so I think this line or reasoning quite important, don’t you? IMO, the premiere triad is ‘Universality’ – ‘Particularity’ – ‘Genericity’. Genericity allows one to place oneself in the highest eclectic ‘cupola’ of understanding, as all standpoints, except eclectic genericity, are corrupted by their self-dressed prejudices. Pragmaticism is also the eclectic genericity standpoint Peirce assumed, even though he never stated it exactly thus. It’s rather obvious he took the eclectic standpoint of genericity, when one views his entire life’s work, as he spoke so often about it, and especially since Thorstein Veblen, being his brightest and longest term student, and as we all know his position, was also deeply based in eclectic genericity, yet He was the genius founding father of America’s Institutional Economics School___Peirce influenced? It’s overly obvious... These graphs truly speak this genericity for themselves.

Example Graph[All graphs/graphics now exist here: http://kondratyev.blogspot.com/ Just scroll about half way down page to these numbered graphics #1 - #9 — Click to enlarge]
(Requires Microsoft Word 5+)
[Temporary revision of all graph addresses: go to: [Dead Link]http://www.flipdrive.com/flipdrive.php[Dead Link] and use username, ____ and password, _____ then click on My Drive, and all the files can be downloaded by clicking on them(1st 8 doc files). Sorry for the inconvenience.](Requires Microsoft Word 5+)

Let me start the explication of graph one, Epistemology, “An Isomorphic/Ergodic Abductive Model of Aesthetic Perception”. This is a valid general model of perception agency and her agents, that should be acceptable to all minds, as it’s already been checked by many others. If not, let me know what you may see differently. First, why isomorphic? Just ask yourself, “What does the mind do, when transferring external objects into perception, and representing them there?” You’ll quickly see this is a mathematical process, not perfectly isomorphic at first, as a percept, but secondarily as a perceptual judgment it is, as you concentrate on its particulars, as to parts and colors, but geometrically it’s represented isomorphically, and dimensionally it’s represented proportionally, thus it is the a priori actions of a fundamental, exacting, mathematical mapping perception. Next, you may ask, “What is ergodic?” If you picture a triangle, circle or square, without thinking, you’ll see a near perfect formation of any one within perception. Now, how could this be when you didn’t have anything to do with shaping it? Perception automatically shapes it to best fit___this is what I’m interpreting as ergodicity, or perception tends toward equilibriums, especially seen with the triangle, as I’ll bet it was seen first as being equilateral, the circle perfectly round, and the square perfectly square. And, if you didn’t do it consciously, what did? Perception is a priori naturally mathematically potentialized from birth, or even before. Next, you’ll probably ask, “What does abductive mean?” That’s the hardest to explain, but you’ve just witnessed one aspect of it. It’s the continuum(internal space) of the mind automatically functioning all on it’s own to assist you. It’s an automatic former-representer of ideas, objects, images and concepts, etc. Metaphysically put, it’s the silent logical Angel of your mind. Of course most know what aesthetics(core of the mind) means. It’s simply that which is admirable___the true, good and the beautiful___greatest good, best order, etc.(Since writing what abduction is, I’ve better seen what it truly is, just by writing and re-thinking this post. It’s the logical search and discovery of exact extra-logical(simply meaning new logic connections) truth. Abduction is also sometimes purely accidental, happen-stance and can also be totally random, but is always, at base, a logical search for extra-logical clues, to answer a logical quest, when one at least has a vague, or clear, idea of the exact quest at hand. Abduction is further a thorough exploration of logical mathematical imagination space(the entire continuum of thought storage, and the physical external world of facts_there are no magic continuum spaces_they’re all real physical and mental storage spaces___Only. IOW’s, there exist no real Angels of the continuum.), as a method of increasing the chances of clues toward an ultimate truth quest, is originally set by the investigator. I here simply described my own processes of scientific discovery, and it’s always been generally guided by the initial logical quest of finding the exacting universal logical arithmetic to prove my own ultimate, self-created, economic model. This is much as Peirce described it_One must have the ultimate purpose in hand for abduction to logically function, and one must be optimistic, holding to a zero state of prejudice, for abduction to succeed. It’s ultimately founded on the final effects of the purpose. BTW, it’s fully mathematizable from Peirce’s own Pragmatic Maxim, applied to the ultimate purpose of the goal_additions to the habits of universal rationality’s advance toward the ultimate aesthetic reality, i.e., self/world-improvement.) And finally, abduction is also, seeing from exact logic, to exact logic, with exact logic. And, abduction is also, seeing from musement, to musement, with musement. In other words, abduction is the eclectic triadic functions of the mind, soul and muse.)

Next is “The Abductive Choice Function_Psychology or Logic = Aesthetics and/or Mathematics.” This is another function of abduction. That is to operate as the universal choice functioning/functioner of the mind and will, between your choice of being or using psychology, or logic bases of personality, which can be further interpreted as aesthetic and/or mathematical functions of personality choices. You simply abduct(draw) from the continuum(mind’s internal space) what you wish your personality to be, that is ‘iff’(if and only if) you are aware of the possibility to be either, or both at once, which would be choosing to be and have an eclectic(many worlds/subjects) personality. Next, “Perception is a 3D Geo-Metric processing engine. Concepts isomorphically map to higher concepts. Truth tends toward truth until it tends away.” Most of this is now self-explanatory, except possibly the last sentence about truth. This is the deep part of truth most are not even aware of. It’s when you are deep in thought trying to solve a conceptual problem, and you just can’t get there. That’s because the better nature(green), and the higher nature(red) of your mind are in conflict, without you even realizing it, so the truth you are looking for tends to evaporate. To avoid this dilemma you must cash your ideas through the opposite states of your own mind, that is, check your higher nature ideas through your better nature ideas, and vise versa. Then you’ll be more satisfied with the results.

Before proceeding to explain the graph’s text boxes further, I’d probably best explain the overall main graphic, which is keyed in the upper left corner. The double headed arrow is as it says, and the single headed arrow is also as it says. Epistemologically(self-scientific thinking), the mind’s mechanics between perception agency and its agents are usually represented through inferences(in motions of ideas, concepts, thoughts, etc.), as the arrows depict. Here I refer to the inferences as simple transductions, inductions and out-ductions, for a larger communities’ easier understanding. In this entire graphic I veer none at all from Charles Sanders Peirce’s, long ago, written and published epistemics(usually relayed as signs-semeioses). I’m simply using a facsimile language. Much of this epistemics is available at numerous sources on the web, especially at the Arisbe site, DigitalPeirce site and Finland’s Commons site. A Google search will quickly find them. As to perception, I fully agree with Peirce, “All perceptual content must be first presented to the mind from external sources”, even the internal feelings, to feel, as they’d have nothing to feel about, without outside input, even personal internal pain, as it’s actually outside perception, as the brain doesn’t really feel, except of course, headaches, then that’s just nerves and muscles interfering with each other. Thus the main point is the ground inductions arrow feeding into eye/brain/perception are what they are either passively or actively, and out-ductions are what you either will the body to do, or the verbalizations of, whether writing, talking, physical actions, or body language. Internally, as the arrows show, transductions take place between all essence agents and perception agency, either passively, or active willing of. The largest content of mind is passive content through the action of the eyes and nature’s automatic memory storage. We can’t control this, unless we keep our eyes purposely shut all the time, but then that wouldn’t be very much fun, now would it? It’s mother nature’s compliment to our brain’s mechanics, and most likely where most intuition, epiphany, lucid visions, insight, creativity, and imagination content is generated, by the transducted actions of the agents information moves, integrations, and or separations’ spill-overs or willed actions of, as to creativity and imagination.

It may seem complex, but it’s really quite a simple engine of one beautiful nature’s mechanics. Realize this is just a general model, and I may not have included all the pieces. If you see some missing pieces, let me know and I’ll correct the graphic. The agents’ transductions can actually function through the abductive processes, repeating the circuits of idea, concept and hypothesis formations many times over, but the final results are what is always presented to perception(perception actually tracks most transductions, but abductions often start too vague for us to fully track), and when you use perceptual judgment, what you see is what you know. Knowing is just that simple, and that’s all there is to it. I would just suggest using your perceptual judgment of serious issues from the better nature agents of your brain. As you may have noticed, the green areas represent the better nature. The red represent the higher nature. Yellow represent the change agents, and purple represent the survival instincts, and negative capacities. All these agents really function as one whole mind/brain, when operating properly, yet we, as epistemic scientists, separate the agents to understand their monadic, dyadic and triadic + functions. I’ll not go into all the functions, as the article would be too long, but the information is all available at the Peirce sites mentioned, plus at several Digital Peirce sites.

The eternal universal cycle of truth may throw you off, but it’s just the total continuum’s (internal and external) time of evolutional radiation decay, and re-evolution re-emergence___It’s the total cosmology of the continuum(really quite complex, when taken to the quantum and relative levels_not necessary here). I’ve included it in this epistemic perception model, as it will play a role in the later graphs, and it is the origin of all we think and are. The eclectic union of the whole is the greatest good and best order of all things possible, just as the Greeks long ago described, and is descended from the mechanics of the total trigonometric mathematics of the entire continuum(real internal abstract space, thinking and logic of internal memory’s ideas, and external observations of, in relation to perception’s self-a-priori mathematical potentials and functions). As you may have noticed, I’d written, perception is creativity’s core. Yes, the agency itself is creative intelligence plus, that is, along with our help. Creativity is a lot of hard work though, but none of it escapes perception’s eye, as I’ve experienced this aspect all my life, since my entire local and extended family is extremely competitive, and I well remember the hard work of creative competition and extensive practice, practice, practice... That seems to finish up this graph’s explanations. Any questions, pleas e-mail me: lloyd.gillespie@gmail.com

Excuse me, but there’s one further box of text that should be mentioned here, “Two World’s_The Existing Real & The Aesthetical Ideal…” I forgot I’d actually added this to this graph due to space deficiency on the next graph, where it really belongs, so I’ll give an explanation here. To some, it may be self-evident, but to most, they may have no idea what I mean, so the two world’s I’m referring to, if I may use such language, are the semantic and the pragmatic spheres of knowledge and action, and its two divisions of the real world, here and now, we actually live in, and the possible world we could live in, if the semantic weren’t so parasitic on the pragmatic, or the other way around if your mind works best that way. By this I’m referring to the Capitalist Conspiracy Against Capitalism by the globe’s over-profiting/over-greedy corporations’, suppressions and exploitations of all else___The Over-Development of Under-Development, we’ve all witnessed over the last forty years. We used to have a constitution of the people, by the people, for the people. We now have a constitution of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations, and little liberty left over for the average citizens. This isn’t just in America, it’s, contract-wise, the globe over. This my friends must change…! Take Back America___We Need You!!!

Next I’ll present a further explication of the second graph titled, “A Triadic Cartesian Graph of Universal Logic Functions(Copulas)”. This graph is the first one I actually drew, to represent the logical functions of morality’s actions and influences over time, actually a tria-chronic time-span. It has been explained here: LINK I’ll just offer the most recent interpretations’ additions. This graph is more easily understood with the trigonometric mathematics representations of the next four graphs, since they clearly show the universal proportional mathematics necessary for this graph’s easier explication, but I present it second, as this is the best fit order of an overall explication, due to other factors, since it actually deals with the simpler concept of morality, which is closer linked to the first graphic. For centuries social scientists and mathematicians have said it’s impossible to mathematize morality, but they never read and or realized Peirce’s normative science’s categorical functions’ powers. Peirce clearly showed where all epistemic agents of the entire mind/brain fit together and function(best order). Morality(greatest good), of our better nature, can be updated to and through aesthetics(true, good, beautiful), ethics(rationality) and logic(highest nature), which gives it its mathematic function(overall best order). These agents, at their highest levels, are all isomorphic(map one to one, in certain aspects, and mean identity) with one another, thus the highest level of morality, personal liberty, can be pushed up the line through aesthetics, ethics and to logic. Of course, this only functions for the genericity of moral liberty(which actually covers the liberties of all the better natures, even the liberty of love, compassion and empathy), but that’s all I need for later showing total global systems’ functions, as the best order(best organization of global systems mechanics to achieve aesthetic outcomes, which will defend the better natures) is all I’m after, and should satisfy all feelings concerned, as the best feelings are the best(tautology, but anyway). The proportionality maths(whether geometry, algebra, trigonometry or calculus doesn’t matter, as they all work, from the simplest to the most complex, as genericity exhibits, many place space, isomorphisms) of the next graphs clearly relates all these real universal actions, with exacting universal logic functions, and Peirce’s Pragmatic Maxim, or my Triadic Maxim of, clearly inter-relates all the exact logic functions, and exact maths necessary, for proofs of all the graphs’, real world, value validities.

Peirce’s pragmatic maxim is the total triadic trigonometric, universal algorithm, to solve all world problems. (The continuum’s mathematical habits_Key – ultimate model interpretant.) As you may have noticed, Peirce’s ‘habits’ is mentioned in the graph. IMO, this is what thoroughly stumped the greatest mind of all centuries. He knew the evolution of the entire universe was represented by his idea of ‘taking on habits’, but when it came to proving his pragmatic principle, he failed to link habits to the continuum’s exact abductive universal math function, which his own categories contain, and also the fact that he was well aware of Kant’s a priori continuum exact math functions, or was he?. This is actually unbelievable to me, why he, or anyone since, hasn’t seen this glaringly obvious omission. Peirce worked on abduction for most of his life, yet failed to see it already written on the very top of his categories list(scroll down to Chiasson's list), he so faithfully believed in. To me, it’s next to impossible he, or the entire world, could have missed this link, for most a hundred years, as it solves all the proofs of his Pragmatic Maxim and Abduction, when thoroughly explicated, with these offered graphs. With this abductive realization, I’ve been able to create the Universal Logic and exacting Geometry/Trigonometry represented in five of the six graphs. The ultimate model interpretant Peirce searched for was the continuum’s mathematical habits’ equilibriation, as here represented in humanity’s exact mathematical habits link, to the continuums(internal and external), just as Kant described in his Metaphysics of Law at: LINK .
The ultimate goal is to improve the law, by the additions of rationality of habits, just as Peirce otherwise described, thus being an addition to the existing body of liberty’s arithmetic potential, for the benefit of all the citizens.

Keynes’s/Godel’s/Hintikka’s natural intuitive probability logic is the only valid universal logic possible, to use with Socrates'/Peirce’s semantic/pragmatic triadic logic, to complete a true knowledge web. What I’m referring to is the possibility of building the new knowledge systems, making use of the knowledge these graphs represent. It’s really quite more than I had even expected, as every day, more pops out at me, from the graphs___Universals everywhere. So many present universal formulas can be used in new ways I’m afraid to start mentioning them all, as it seems I’d never end. Newton’s laws can be substituted many places in the next graphs, and this one as well. Einstein’s equation can be reworked(same setup, just different meanings for the letters) to work with Pythagoras’ and Archimedes universal formulas, when applied to these graphs’ quants and qualias, and the list goes on and on___So many isomorphic(most universals seem to be, in many ways, isomorphic_future investigations will verify) connections, it’s unbelievable. This graph also represents the ability to figure all the quants’ and qualias’ functions necessary to solve most all present global problems, especially when combined with the next four. Was, is and ought models are now easily universally quantified and qualified, even just by simply looking at the graphs, and using simple deductions and inductions of the general proportional trigonometric observations, when applied to total systems logic of possible and potential changes. All changes lie between the mean extremes, thus are easily mathematized, proportionally___Exactly.

The aesthetic growth of universal rationality and liberty, function as the primary impetus of the triadic, trigonometric, isomorphic continuum. This is the main point Peirce missed, when looking for his proof. The math functions of his habits of rationality’s increase existed in the isomorphic continuum(internal and external, vague and exact logic, information sources), all along. By just looking at the social functions of historical logic’s advance through liberty, money and law, it’s very clear to the trained economic eye, and the graphs should make it clear to any sound mind. The historical goal of liberty’s rational increase is a mathematical progression toward an ultimate goal of true and pure liberty___The greatest good and the best order(already laid out by the GR graph). From that trigonometric continuum we can abduce the final state from its necessary split equilibrium function, of two people having and sharing equilibriated liberty, just as Kant long ago showed. This triadic mathematical function has been there since the early Greeks first created the triads of math, and the Golden Ratio. Peirce’s key to finding it should have been his categorical normative science of aesthetics, and especially it clearly being headed by mathematics, but “Oh well…”

Law and The Choice of, Are the Logic Functions of All Living and Non-Living Truth Systems___Potential All. Most of the world has been raised with the myth that money is the root of all evil. The truth is, it takes law to make money, money, therefore; Law is the true root of all evil, if anyone must look at it that way. I prefer to be more positive. This is why I’ve stated the above. When one looks at the base foundations and functions of law and ethics, thoroughly, one is struck by the utter lack of non-clarity of ethics’ true function through the years, with all its overly-obvious injustices. What I’m saying is, the world has made a great “standpoint mistake” since Aristotle’s inception of his ethics’ grounding in “rational docens” at the expense of “rational utens”, i.e., state value views against the natural. All religious systems’ views have also made this same mistake, by overly respecting rationality of state, or ancient ‘god/metaphysical’ law, in Aristotle’s and Hegel’s cases, and overly respecting the potential morality of far too ‘godly’ a citizens, in Scotus’ and Kant’s cases, when ethics should have been truly and soundly founded in and on the eclectic view of “aesthetics’ utens/docens”. By the processes thus far tried, we end with no more of a system of ethics than that which unduly victimizes citizens, either from the over-worship of state values, or the over-worship of moral values, creating nothing, at base, other than a true value invalidity of such ethics. It’s mainly due to money’s present and ancient powers’ influence on even our modern psyche, and this, my friends, must change. We need “A New Universal Philosophy___Aneology___of Eclectic ‘Rational Aesthetic Utens’ and ‘Rational Aesthetic Docens’”.

The Isomorphic Logic of All Truth Systems_All Possible Potential. This line is just meant to clarify these graphs’ potential___the amount of inter-relational mathematics potentials is amazing, and growing, even to my mind, every day. I’d have to say, it’s all(a truly better world) possible, as long as our thoughts conform to the eclectic ideals of aesthetic ethics and logic, and are in agreement with our better nature’s rational eclectic ideals. Who wouldn’t want “the admirable” to finally safely rule the world?

X/X=1+E-->E=1/5X These two formulas are explications of philosophical and economic problems I came across while researching my necessary maths. X/X=1+E stands for any object X divided by itself X, is actually 1+E, i.e., itself plus extensionality, i.e., it’s quantum extensions. I developed it to solve the relativeness problems pervading the society of academics and elsewhere. Having it imply E=1/5X, which is actually my solution formula for economics, is my way of showing another hidden isomorphic abduction, where one would not expect to find one. I realized that a nation divided by itself, could only be set right again by such a powerful universal formula as E=1/5X, (please, must read this money system post to understand article and graphs) LINK where E stands for economic perfection(as near as we can come) equals a 1/5th computerized international/national law control of all global financial exchanges/transactions(including currencies), in order to safely rebalance the other 4/5ths, allowed to stay free. The last three graphs clearly show these functions’ possibilities, and an explication of a new system graph exists here: LINK . This next truth speaks for itself; “The Highest Probability, of The Highest Possibility, Is The Only Possibility. The Highest Possibility, Is Now Absolutely Necessary For Our Very Survival.”

The next graph I wish to take up is titled, “The Golden Ratio and True/Pure Liberty”. The link is here: LINK How this graph idea came to me is really a bit of a mystery, but my best recollection was when researching a link of Peirce’s triadic studies, that led to the Pythagoreans Triadic Principle and Law of Mean Terms. That investigation triggered an intuitive or abductive curiosity about figuring out the actual makings of the Golden Ratio and the Golden Mean, and this graph is the result. But, just by making it, I abductively linked the ideas of mathematical liberty, then later still, found Kant’s mathematical liberty article. All really quite bazaar, as I’d gone to the drug store to buy a compass and straight edge, actually a large protractor, to build the Golden Ratio just as the Greeks had done___compass and straight edge only. I came home, down in Ft. Pierce, Florida last February and sat down to draw my GR. Just this second though, I first noticed Ft. Pierce as being closely related to Peirce’s name, yet never before did, even though I was doing work on Peirce there all winter. I don’t know, it’s probably because the town’s so old hat to me, as I attended the 3rd grade there in 1953-54. Still, that’s pretty strange.

Anyway, I only had this drawn in pencil on paper until about a month ago, when I transferred it to a Word Doc. This was when I noticed the liberty explication potential, and really couldn’t believe it, but the more I looked, the more it made sense___It worked, and worked good, almost too good, as a friend and fellow researcher so told me. This was when I got to wondering how far this graph could go, then I realized it could go all the way to explicating all the universal exact logic(exact logic is numbers, and in this case, as relates to extremal, minimal and center means, as these graphs clearly show) maths I had needed since the early 1980’s. This just got more amazing the more I worked with it. I researched all the early Greek maths and symbols on Wikipedia for about a week, and found Kepler’s Triangle, also based on the GR. Now, I really had the graphic tools I needed to go to work, and to work I did go. This is why the red triangle is laid under the green Golden Mean area. Anyone can look up how it’s all done on Wikipedia(a safe enough source for general pre-knowledge). I’ll not go into that explanation. What I want to concentrate on is how it represents all forms of liberty possible; best, to two or more states of worst, and all possible states between, with the proper national and global statistics(available at C.H.I.P.S. and the B.I.S., plus the I.M.F., World Bank, Comptroler of Currency, and Office of Management and Budget, etc.) added.

When liberty functions within the GM area as a Golden Variable, all societies function at their best, as all persons are treated the fairest by the variable equilibriated liberty potential the GM offers. All persons’ personalities have enough liberty to function happily, and all state functions operate to the levels of highest efficiencies, for all concerned. When the GM varies too far above the upper GR line, it heads for dictatorships or autocracies, the unwanted conditions. When the GM varies too far below the GR line, it heads for communist type states and mob rule, the other unwanted conditions. These are both the states of too free a freedom of liberty, which means there’s a Golden Mean of best function between these extremes, which operates between these two worst means, which is clearly illustrated in the graph. This graph can also represent a best case Keynesianism, as is illustrated. Where exactly this best possible state of liberty lies within the GM is less important, as long as it doesn’t lie outside it, where the oppressions and exploitations begin taking place, inordinately, or inside in a state of being far too strict a social contract law structure of nefarious liberty, coercing everyone’s liberty___so it really can be just about as bad when too strict, as when too free___both must be guarded against. I’m only looking for the genericity of the best conditions, not the perfection, that we all know does not exist, so the graph offers all I needed to continue to my next step.

The fourth graph titled, “Worst Form of Communist Capitalism”. The link is here: LINK I’ve called it communist capitalism because actually all systems operate on money, and even communism, in its worst days, was still living off capitalist doggy-bags, by speculating against her. It makes it much easier to communicate if we throw away the useless ideologies, so done with them. As you may see, this graph exhibits hard mathematical relationships of definite power change potentials. The math represented is Pythagoras’ theorem. It can be handled algebraically through the Pythagorean Theorem, or geometrically through the additions of the areas of squares, or trigonometrically through its angles. All three maths are isomorphic, i.e., totally map to each’s functions, and give the same universal answers of exact arithmetic logic, as applied to genericity’s proportionalities. So, we’ve finally arrived at the core of the mathematics that functions for all our graphs, except the first, but I haven’t yet attempted to apply it to the perception graph. I’ll get to that at a later date.

This graph is talking about power relationships, social contracts and the liberties of, power shifts, and three distinctly represented groups; governments, corporations and elites, and people or citizens. All these graphs are designed to show the genericity conditions of all maximum, minimum and center states of societies’ faults and potentials. As this worst case communism capitalism shifts over time between kakistocracy and mob rule, it squashes the liberties of the corporations and elites, thus in turn finally squashing the liberties of all, as we all know China’s system did. This is the worst case Marxism and clearly shows the sliding incentive time scales of history, when compared against the next two graphs, and all other proportional possibilities, over time, between these three graph state conditions, and any proportional conditions between these listed.

The next graph is titled, “The World’s Position___Now…” The link is here: LINK It represents the worst possible state of, yet functioning, Keynesian capitalism, as autocracies, dictatorships, nationalisms, national socialisms, and any other bad forms of capitalism. This is a state when corporations are far too strong and governments are either far too strong and or far too weak. This was represented by Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany, as well as it is now by most of the world’s terrible economies, which the $684 trillion of derivatives guarantees to get worse, far worse. As you can see the problem is the sanctity of contracts, nationally and internationally, as all must pay their bills, yet can’t, so all liberties will be required to shrink, until the core problem of imbalanced currency rates is, finally, fully addresed. When the corporations assume almost all the powers of law and liberty, as they have certainly now done, the people/citizens are squashed out of all chances of their liberty’s advance, unless new law structures are emplaced, which the last graph will be about. The graph really speaks for itself, so I’ll go on to the last graph.

The final graph is titled, “Best Middle-Way Model Capitalism”. The link is here: LINK Now you see more of the balances of everyone’s liberty, such as the third graph, The Golden Ratio, represented___these two graphs function as one whole, as the best system possible___the ultimate rational system___The ultimate goal of humanity. This is the ideal state of liberty conditions we are all striving for. It’s that magical continuum Angel Charles Sanders Peirce spent his entire life looking for. This is where all his logic and maxims come into full play. I could never have drawn these graphs without the genius of Peirce’s ideas and exacting logics. This graph offers the social contract sustainability and value validity we’ve all been looking for. It’s not only the culmination of my life’s work, as well as possibly that of Peirce in purpetuity, but I dare say that of many great minds of little Ol’ Planet Earth. It offers all the exact universal formulas, international financial contract possibilities, through international exchange clearing, 'bancor' banking, emergency labor banks, trade and basic income potentials. At the least, they are now in your viewing potential, and I don’t think you’ll ever be able to rid yourself of this greatest of abductively derived continuum gifts.

This is triadic abductive logic at its most powerful use. Archimedes 'center of mass' universal formula is offered, to properly re-balance all our global economies. Just let L stand for liberty and M for money. Archimedes is still capable of balancing the world with a lever, because that’s as simple a math as it takes to solve the entire world’s worst problems. Throw in a bit of geometry, algebra and trigonometry, and the job is done. Charles Sanders Peirce foresaw the power of his Pragmatic Maxim and Abductive Logic, but he may never have dreamed how simple the final answer would be. These are the best case triadic computational algorithms for a best case Greek/Kantian/Peircean/Keynesianism. What do you think?

L.A.Gillespie

P.S.
(extra explaining article links)

The economic and mathematical truth___Paul Davidson
The deflationary debt truth___Irving Fisher
The historical economic truth___Robert Skidelsky
Imagination___There’s More to `Utens’ Than First Meets the Eye…
The Realities of Understanding Capitalist Free-Trade, vs., Communist Controlled Trade, Intents and Practices…
National Security Alert #3___The Republic Destroying Democracy, Fix…
“The Eclectic Ontological Geometry of Global Markets and Transactions…”
Aneology___A New Isomorphic Logic
Archimedes Angle Tri-Section...
“Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings you conceive the objects of your (best possible liberty)conception to have. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the (best and highest possible)object(a priori arithmetic liberty).” The pragmatic maxim, C.S. Peirce plus my bolded addition
National Security Alert #2___The Epistemology of Ecolo-Techno-Political-Economic Morality…
The Isomorphic Gates of Perception
P=NP Incomplete___The Maximal Triadic Axiomatic Truths, And Un-Truths
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel
"Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein
"A priori arithmetic is the greatest philosophy knowable to humanity."
“There exists no mind or machine, sufficiently powerful, to process finity and infinity, simultaneously!”___Proofs below…
“The highest probability, of the highest possibility, is the only possibility.”
Tri-Chronic Dimensional Geometric Logic, and Tri-Chronic Spatial Perception…
“Logic is rooted in the social principle.” Charles Sanders Peirce
“No man can communicate the smallest item of information to his brother-man unless they have … common familiar knowledge; where the word `familiar’ refers less to how well the object is known than the manner of knowing … Of course, two endless series of knowings are involved.” C.S. Peirce
RISK AND UNCERTAINTY IN ECONOMICS, By Paul Davidson, Editor, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics
National Security Alert #1___The Epistemology of Economics…
"The Missing Teleology"...
The Truth of The History of Logic___Peirce vs. Russell
Peirce's Logic of Continuity: Existential Graphs and Non-Cantorian Continuum, by Fernando Zalamea
Flying Money___“Big Strong Dollar, Make Big Weak Nation…!”
The Triangle of Triadic Wisdom, to Actionable Intelligence and Actionable Use...
The Politics of Ideologies…
A View of Relative Pluralism
The Triadic Mind...
A warning from Paul Krugman of what should be blin...
Eclectic Universal Conceptualism...
Media's Missing Intelligent Economists...
The Entire Global Market Law System Is Broken___Th...
Is The World Mature Enough To Handle “Free Money P...
America's Financial Dictatorship of The Global Eco...
Major Monetary Reform
Peirce/Dewey foundational education quotes...
Windows In The Cave
Obama___Giving Ground Back To Politics And Economi...
The Realities of Understanding Capitalist Free-Tra...
Can Obama Save America, From Surrendering Capitali...
Essay On Paper Currency___Proposing A New Method F...
Oil's Tulip-Mania?___Oil and Reality
Obama___The Perfect Unification Storm___A True Pat...
Letter To A Friend___Ideology's Nonsense
The Wisdom to Power Void

Saturday, May 16, 2009

The History of History___Eclecticism___Where Is It?

Peirce's Diagramatic Categories; REASONING READINESS—THE VERY FIRST R: by Phyllis Chiasson (Scroll down to diagram)

“We should chiefly depend not upon that department of the soul which is most superficial and fallible (our reason), but upon that department that is deep and sure, which is instinct.” - Charles Sanders Peirce

Far too much about history has been stated in narrow analytical diatribe, inconcise nonsense, and pure empty rhetoric… Why? Are we really that dense? A simple first example; Aristotle___Most think he’s great because he wrote about a beautiful system of ethics, true enough, but what about his non-sensical silly-gistic proposition/predicate logic, or whatever you want to call it? Then along comes Kant with another beautiful system of ethics and arithmetic liberty, but what about his wedge driven between the “logica utens” and the “logica docens”? Was there any need of these two great minds dividing our natural senses so miserably? So nefariously? Then, just as the world is starting to come out of its stupidity, with Boole, DeMorgan, Jevons, Peirce and Shroader, along comes Frege with more of the same old divisions of logical sense/nonsense(and conflation), which has continued through Cantor, Piano, Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Quine and Chomsky, ruling most of modern intellect. Oh, and don’t let me forget Hegel___That wonderful over-worshiper of state. Neitzsche? Another life hater. Beautiful story, ‘ain’t’ it…?

Is it true? How would you tell truth? Really, tell me… Napolean existed___True. Stalin existed___True. Hitler existed___True. Mooselini existed___True. Hussein and Bin Ladin existed/exist___True. Is this the type of truth the world really believes? Is there any real truth of “Power”? Does anyone on Earth know what the truth of “Power” really is? Is power logical to itself? Yes. Is power ethical to itself? Yes. Is power truthful to itself? Yes. Is power honest to itself? Yes. Is power all the above to a majority of its citizens? Yes, more often than we care to think about. Believe me, Caligula and Machiavelli have no one-up-ness on most of the modern world, it’s just that now, we do it all with the power systems of money___The Corporate Military Industrial Complexes.

Let’s take an eclectic look at historical power, through the eyes of logic, math, philosophy and money, Ok? What made it all go wrong? Simple question___Complex answer. Let’s rephrase it. What made it all go mathematically so wrong? That can be answered. Let’s look at the actors and players, mainly from history’s most influencial source___The academics. At least, most of them think they’re the most influencial source of change and refinement. Why is it we have such genius arithmetic scientists, and yet such meager philosophers of the mathematical sciences? Is it accidents of history, the complexity and time study constraints of history, or possibly the laziness of philosophers to truly learn the requisite maths, to more effectively describe mathematical histories’ and meta-histories’ truths?

Looking back at the early Greeks, we find great advancements by the geometers and the Pythagorean Schools, up until Aristotle. Then___What happened? The Pythagoreans had developed a most advanced triadic math and logic, with a necessary “mean terms”. They had the “Triadic Law of Mean Terms”___“The Triadic Principle”. This was a very pragmatic system of math and logic as attributed to them by Socrates, and much of Plato’s dialogues. Even Aristotle’s early work on the Nicomachean Ethics was excellent work, when he was still influenced by Plato and the Pythagoreans, but things shortly changed. The change, due to much critical Greek antagonism, may have forced Aristotle to try and sure up his philosophy, but without the genius influence and help of Plato, Aristotle went down a very confusing and false road. He separated the “logica utens” and the “logica docens” into two entirely distinct schools of thought, with his three laws of logic, and the main fault being the “Excluded Middle”. This put his logic in direct opposition with Pythagorean Triadic Logic and Math, with a new less powerful Dyadic Logic and Math. Archimedes tried to salvage it, as did Eudoxas, Nicomachus and Apollonius, and later the Arabic speaking nation-states, with their “Houses of Wisdom”, also tried to salvage the early Greek ideas, yet to no avail, when Averroes came along. Aristotle’s logic won the day, over the more able Triadic Logics of the early Pythagoreans, as the early Greek and Byzantine knowledge systems slowly crept into Europe. Could this have been different? Why was it so disasterous?

We all know the history by now. The “Port Royal Logic” School accepted the less capable and confusing “Dyadic Logic” and “Math Systems” of the Aristotle influenced schools. Even Galen had clearly shown the faults of much of Aristotle’s system, and the Arabic peoples, up to Biruni and Avicenna, clearly tried to right the wrongs, to no avail, so we finally ended with two distinct logic and math systems and schools of thought, right down to this day, but more of the history needs mentioning. Many mathematicians and true working scientists, through the years , always followed the true Pythagorean, Euclidian and Archimedean Schools, but most philosophers of, and many more falsely influenced scientists and mathematicians followed the more confused logic, arithmetic and (modal schools, which the Byzantine’s had created). Then along comes the enlightenment, to pull the wool fully over everyone’s eyes, for many years to come, with Descarte’s further separation of mind and body, etc., etc., and finally to the point everything was so confusing, Kant came along to try and straighten it all out. But, he ended separating the “Utens” and “Docens” even further___Nice try, but no ringers. Oh, there was his excellent mathematical ethics and liberty papers, but the true philosophical and final sense separation was devastating for logic and math systems for the next 150 years. You see, math and true mathematical logic are of the “logica utens” and most philosophers describe this true a priori ground as though it’s of the “logica docens”, and herein lies all the confusion.

Now, was this accidental or pure laziness, on the part of the philosophers and historians? I can’t truly answer this, but if life’s experiences are any guide, there’s a good percentage of all trades, crafts and professionals that are just plain lazy and downright slackers, so my money is on history really being controlled by this lazy-slacker element of all societies___Period…! The bad runs both up and down hill. No matter how brilliant anyone wants to think the professional classes are, that’s not my experience of life, at near 64 years of age, and this is why the human element of any system’s success is dubitable, unless we can turn much of society’s bad elemental powers over to properly algorithmatized computers___I have no faith in humanity changing, even if they realize their lives are at stake. I think there’s just far too many lazy-slackers who just wouldn’t believe it if the “Bear” were staring them in the face. They’d say, “Nice Bear”.

Well anyway, after Kant got through trashing the system, along came Hegel kissing up to the state, and a metaphysical “Notion”, after Kant had already created the “Thing In Itself” boogy-man. There’s really a ‘lotta’ interpretation in those two ideas, kinda like Wittgenstein’s “Private Language”. Yeah, I admit we all do have private self-languages, but that’s not what ‘Witt’ meant, and we all know that. As I mentioned earlier, others came along in time to straighten the world mess out, but America’s invasion by Europe’s WWI and WWII hoards of professional miscreants clobbered us, and down to the bottom of the barrel went Peirce, and his student Veblen, to only be replaced by English and European mediocrity, ending the only true and valid “Triadic Systems” revival, at that time possible.

Luckily, the last few decades have begun to change the world intellectual picture, even if it’s still but in the periphery, Peirce’s, Jevons’, Veblen’s and Keynes’ views are coming back into vogue, through the new heterodox schools. It only takes a quick Google search to verify this___millions of hits, thank ‘god’, when all epistemic and cognitive searches are done. So let’s take a quick look at the possible revival of “Triadic Ideas” as relates to the “Semantic Web” possibly not being so parasitic on the “Pragmatic Web” in our highly possibly better future.

How can we best represent global power systems? Capitalism? Socialism? Communism? Social Contracts? Contractarianism? Nationalism? Or Social Democratic Capitalism mixes? Taking an eclectic view, allowing a triadic isomorphic systems logic, which would recognize our better nature’s priority over our higher nature’s ego, we may have a shot at a new and total understanding. Are any of these systems true? Are any of these systems value validity preserving___sustainable? We’re certainly going to have to admit the present system has failed, or at the least terribly mis-fired. Are we going to have to rebuild it? Replace it? Coddle it? Or outright change the entire system for something entirely new? Does anyone really know about Keynes’ total system of “International Exchange Clearing, Bancor and Emergency Jobs Banks?” Does anyone even truly realize we have the computational ability to figure new systems from a future model’s arithmetic completion position? Can anyone even believe this? There’s lots of talk of adopting amalgamations of old tried and failed systems, but not much of Keynes’ true “Middle Way.” What if there’s an even better “Middle Way” compatible with the yearnings of entire generations’ better nature’s and higher natures? Surprise___There is, and has been for years. I, Paul Davidson and Jane D’Arista have been offering just such systems for years, but where’s the eclectic understanding, high enough, to see the possibility of a “Semantic Web” evolving the “Pragmatic Web” to a really new and true “Knowledge Web?” Not just more of the same, but a full-fledged, benign, algorithmic computerized system, capable of eliminating the un-necessary parasitic powers, that now rule the world economies to madness. I’d suggest studying Macromouse, The Awakening of the American Mind, Paul Davidson’s massive body of academic work, or Jane D’Arista’s ideas, then maybe we’ll have a chance.

There’s no sense me re-writing it all here again, as it’s all been posted at these sites. Charles Sanders Peirce, and his relational quantification logic, is the key mind to putting together all the “Triadic Isomorphic Logic” necessary to accomplish the above…

Saturday, April 25, 2009

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

Abduction As An Aspect of Retroduction, Phyllis Chiasson

Charles Sanders Peirce___Encyclopedia Britannica

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ‘Bullfrog’ has spoken…

Saturday, April 18, 2009

"The Missing Teleology"...

The Truth of The History of Logic___Peirce vs. Russell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Ok, see you later Joseph…”