A quasi-introduction to an upcoming paper by this author...

 

A quasi-introduction to an upcoming paper by this author...

The A Priori World Speaks 1^st…

The Global Inference Mechanics of Natural Self-Judgment and Decision; or At Limit__Pure Self-Understanding…

“Two things here are all-important to assure oneself of

 and to remember. The first is that a person is not absolutely

 an individual. His thoughts are what he is "saying to himself,"

 that is, is saying to that other self that is just coming into life in

 the flow of time. When one reasons, it is that critical self that

 one is trying to persuade; and all thought whatsoever is a sign,

 and is mostly of the nature of language. The second thing to

 remember is that the man's circle of society (however widely or

 narrowly this phrase may be understood), is a sort of loosely

 compacted person, in some respects of higher rank than

 the person of an individual organism." Charles S. Peirce

“The elements of every concept enter into logical thought at the gate

 of perception and make their exit at the gate of purposive action;

 and whatever cannot show its passports at both those two gates

 is to be arrested as unauthorized by reason.” C. S. Peirce

“It is the central insight of the theory of abduction that

 there is no induction without a pre-existent hypothesis

 which has been inferred or constructed abductively.” CP

                                                                                    

by L.A. Gillespie

Autodidact; Polymath

9-25-45 to 2012

Meddybemps, ME

7^th year member,

Camden Philosophical Society,

Camden, ME

Material copyrighted ©,

Please contact author for use.

Abstract:

This paper represents an explanation of the deepest mental mechanics, so far attempted, in this author’s opinion, from his extensively researched overview, of all philosophical history. The most modern thinking philosophers have stated, that a full understanding of ‘abduction’ is present philosophy’s most urgent task. Though many papers have been set forth about this ‘deepest inner mechanics of the hypothesis’, in recent years, it is this author’s opinion, they all fall short of the entire truth necessary for full a priori grounding__in experience, world and rationality__where the ‘psychical logic’ of epistemology and phenomenology has not been thoroughly understood as having ‘independence of thought’, from the ‘psychological reasoning’ of our epistemologies__which has more prevailed over the last 100 years. Since the loss of Charles Sanders Peirce’s exceptional talents of helping the world understand the necessity of a ‘critical common-sense’ discrimination between psychological sense and logical sense__where and whence both are truly and fully needed, but within the scope of being within their proper places, interpretations and understandings of__it is certainly in this author’s opinion, now necessary to make amendments, which may further society’s abilities to possibly communicate more successfully__again. It is the concluding opinion of this paper’s entire thesis, that a properly understood__and full grounding of ideas__back into our innate experiential and natural rational natures, can re-accomplish and replenish what modern society so obviously has lost__and so desperately needs…

1.0_ Introduction:

As you may have already surmised from the titles, quotes and abstract, much of what will follow will include a deep exploration of the historical, as well as personal and public differences between epistemology’s old philosophical arguments; and arguments, here meant in a good investigative sense, about the major historical differences between say, nominalism and realism, or more recently updated to cognitive psychological epistemology and inner states of memory and working memory__per say, and normative, nomological and logical epistemology and intellectual rationality, of inner and outer memory, and inner working memory states__along with the direct perception of both sides of these issues. Of course this paper includes far wider and deeper descriptions by also stating the positives and negatives of metaphysics and ontology, as well as the major historical differences between nominalism, noumenalism, epiphenomenalism, and phenomenalism, etc.__where even the ‘Scholastic’ era’s theology enters our historical experiences, as the bearers of these experiences of all kinds, and even logic, science and maths, from the ancient worlds to the modern__as they played an extremely important part, in any of our knowledge advancements being what they are...

It is only fair to state the author’s philosophical position as an experiential, phenomenal realist__with the caveat that he has full knowledge of the necessity of general psychology’s great gift, to positively-rhetorically relay the information any more exacting scientific mind may think, write about and want to persuade his neighbors of such merits__as may be discovered by his more exacting scientific methods. The text will explain how a more eclectic experiential-rational esthetic rhetoric may be developed and used to bridge the many gaps known to presently exist between say; ‘The Continental Schools’, ‘The Analytic Schools’, ‘The Pragmatic Schools’, ‘The Critical Theory Schools’ and ‘The Theistic Schools’ of thoughts and ill-functioning communications…

The author may further mention, he pays a great tribute, not only to Charles Sanders Peirce, but to all history’s greatest minds, and not only the philosophers, but the exact scientists, physicists, psychologists and psychiatrists, mathematicians, historians, economists and especially all the world’s greatest logicians and rhetoricians__as logic is the main field of this author’s, and his many students’ choices of study, for over some forty years of professional life. Just a few should maybe be mentioned__the ones, or at the least__a few of the ones influencing this pen the most; Some of the world’s ‘best’ universal/international, aggregate logical minds this author owes a great debt to may just be__Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Eudoxus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Archimedes, Cicero, Seneca, Boethius, Al-Biruni, Ibn Sina, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Jean Buridan, Nicholas De Cusa, Juan Vives, John Wallis, Francis Bacon, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Baruch Spinoza, Christiaan Huygens, Hugo Grotius, John Locke, Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibnitz, Thomas Reid, Alexander Baumgarten, Immanuel Kant, George Washington, John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, Giambattista Vico, Bernard Bolzano, Tom Paine, Évariste Galois, William Whewell, Auguste Comte, J.C. Bose, S.W. Hamilton, W.R. Hamilton, George Boole, Augustus  De Morgan, William K. Clifford, Alexander Bain, R.H. Lotze, Charles S. Peirce, William Minto, Mark Twain, Christine Ladd-Franklin, Werner Heisenberg, Paul Dirac, Max H. Fisch, S.N. Bose, Jan Lukasiewicz, J.M. Keynes, Arthur Prior, Kurt GÖdel, Mikhail Bakhtin, Clarence Lewis, Alfred Tarski, John Wheeler, Joseph Ransdell, Roderick Chisholm, Nathan Houser, Patrick Coppock, Phyllis Chiasson, Herbert Feigl, Hans Jonas, Peter McLaughlin, Nicholas Rescher, Jay Zeman, James R. Wible, John Sowa, K.O. Apel, Irving Anellis, Sami Paavola, T.L. Short, Joseph Brent, Fernando Zalamea, Ahti Pietarinen, Susan Haack, Albert Casullo, Joseph L. Esposito, Theodora Achourioti, and Igor Naletov, Daniel Andler, etc…(just a short list) As you may have noticed, some listed are not of Peirce’s choices, but this author has his reasons__and no slight is meant to the many other great minds of history, not mentioned…

The Architecture of Sustainability...

http://theawakeningoftheamericamind.blogspot.com/2008/07/emergent-sustainability.html?m=1

A Search For Universal Justice:

My Newest Notes Update:
To Contact Me, Lloyd Gillespie, Scroll Down

These are the notes to a new book I'm presently working on. Anyone interested in these ideas should contact me at: lloyd.gillespie@gmail.com

http://kondratyev.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html#7650962301580507691

My Twitter Posts...

Overview of The World...

https://twitter.com/PiLogic

Necessary and Proper Category Logic__Cultures’ Varying Intelligence Collisions, and Why, Where and How Values Were Cast Aside…

I finally figured out why true intelligence is missing from our modern world. We all know the world has experienced many periods of great flourishing of many cultures’ brilliant intelligences, but I’ve been extremely puzzled why nations, that once were intelligent, lost or lose their intelligence of sensible action, over time. To figure this out, I’ve extensively studied Peirce’s category logic for the last 10+ years, without really laying my mind to exactly what was so important about it, until just recently, when I decided to do a serious comparative analysis, of the interaction of varying nations’ intelligences, over historical time. What I discovered really shocked me, as it’s really so simple to understand, but will take a considerable explanation of a few of these simple facts…

First, let me break down intelligence into a few philosophical categories, we can generally accept as having the capacity to hold most other philosophical intelligence categories under them. Historically we’ve long known about idealism and realism or nominalism and realism, as two majors from Plato and Aristotle to Kant. Since Kant, we’ve had rationalism and empiricism in the modern sense, generally speaking, as it’s really earlier, but anyway… We’ve further and more modernly developed six major additions to these older systems; positivism, logical positivism, Peircean pragmatism, James-Dewey pragmatisms, continental philosophy and analytic philosophy of the language and linguistic brands. I’m purposely not listing others such as transcendentalism, existentialism, nihilism, skepticism, etc., as I feel these can be generally taken up under the above more widely studied systems, and the points I wish to make more concern the category mistakes made by most of the main systems mentioned…

Now, since the early Greeks, mathematics, values, esthetics, ethics and logic played large roles in all the philosophies for some 2500 years, with these mentioned systems being categorized near the top of the priority lists, with lesser prioritized subjects below. Of course the arguments went back and forth between all the metaphysical, ontological, epistemological, phenomenological, etc., discussions all through the 2500 year period, but math, values, esthetics, ethics and logic were all held in high esteem, except of course through the European Dark Ages era, yet these early Greek sciences and values systems were kept in play by the Arabic speaking lands, and finally transferred to Europe during the enlightenment and reformation periods__and greatly admired, I might add. But, something began to change between philosophy’s values and category systems in relation to its more scientific studies, as they were in battle with the Church over the definition of values, and just who was going to control such values, and herein begins the split between values and the more scientific systems of knowledge and intelligence, of these periods. But, this isn’t the main part of my story. It’s only the prelude to what was to take place within Philosophy’s category systems, in the more modern era…

To put this as simple as possible, what was in general standard category logic, from the early Greeks to the positivists, had been the math, esthetic and ethical values, fully joined to logic, at the head of the major category systems. But, this all started to change with the first positivist, Compte, where he promoted math, science and logic above the older and standard Greek values, thus divorcing esthetic and ethical values from his_‘thought so’_more modern scientific view. Now, at first glance, this may not seem to harmful, as science has the right to develop its own independent systems and methodologies, and it’s true, this wouldn’t be much concern, until one realizes this system takes on an entire cultural identity through academics, over the years_as younger students are rote-programmed/educated/trained with this new way of priority categorizing academic knowledge and possible or impossible intelligence, which also filters out into the general society, over time. Still, you may say, “…not such a problem as you make out…” Well, that’s before one realizes the rest of the story…

Since we have more information from Peirce and Frege’ onward, let’s see where we go by dealing with modern logic and psychology, as per the category system of math, logic, language and linguistics’ priorities, in relation to producing nominalism or realism, which existed, more or less, before this period. To the point; Frege’ tried to promote logic and language up the category list, above mathematics, and also tried excluding metaphysics, psychology and values, almost completely from his category system_which was followed also by Russell, Wittgenstein and others, to the present co. of Quine and Chomsky, etc._Thus turning standard logic, values and knowledge on its head_banging itself into egoic nominalism_and eliminating any possibility of true intelligence, guided by community, esthetic and ethical values, in recognition of Greek, Roman, natural, logical, syllogistic and common law__Which had been the sensible way for centuries before…

At this same time, Peirce was working the bugs out of his own system and brand of pragmatism__Where he found that mathematics was necessary to be stationed at the original top placement of the category list, as logic, when attempting the super-fine structures, runs out of explanatory power, and math must take over. Also, Peirce discovered by studying the scholastic logicians, they’d concentrated heavily on values being very important to their logic, thus giving logic its purpose of reasoning, in the first place, not to mention maintaining the personal and social values, the Church had always failingly tried to foster, due to its metaphysical nominalist stance, which is no more than taking belief too far into extremes_but, that’s a story for another book, or more_And I’ll pass on that... Thus we have the opposite ended systems of the logical positivism of Frege and co., and the analytic pragmatism of Peirce, with entirely opposite values and operations, especially when academics filters all these oppositions into culture at large…

If one looks carefully at Frege’ and co’s. system of prioritizing logic, language and linguistics over math and values_and Peirce’s system of prioritizing math, esthics and ethical values over, through and with logic, language and linguistics, one can easily see the clash of civilizations’ intelligences, in an unnecessary battle over priorities_and instead of increasing knowledge, such a conflated battle simply and naturally decreases knowledge, by destroying the necessary and proper values of societies, founding and grounding the continuity of any possible true meaning and learning. Without esthetics and ethics guiding logic’s proper decisions into the maths and sciences, Frege’ and co’s., mistaken category logic priority system simply destroys values and true intelligence, as there’s no continuity to such a bastardized logic system__Thus, such a system ends in pure dialectical nominalism, or the worship of the ego of false logics’, languages’ and linguistics’ idealisms__lacking all true meaning, to the real world of necessary and proper cultural values, knowledge and true intelligence… Oh, and btw, James, Dewey and the Continental philosophers have simply waffled between these two systems of Frege’s nominalism and Peirce’s realism…

Finally, analytically comparing our six original chosen modern philosophic systems; imo, only Pierce’s pragmatic analytic teleological realist system, does not suffer from the others’ egoic nominalist dialectical redundancy.  It’s simply all a matter of prioritizing real effectuated esthetic and ethical values over logic, language and linguistics to produce the desired values for all our sciences, experiences and actions. Of course, this system will need be made widely known and recognized by the academic community, who already threw away Peirce, long ago__Yet, he’s actually the only person to have ever lived, who put the entire philosophical system of true knowledge, science and psychology together properly, which also saves values, by having logic itself, depend on these very same values, in all its analytic systems of actionable use. I think academics has a lot of steps to retrace, to see just what they threw away…

The choice is yours__Values and true intelligence or no values and pseudo-intelligence, for our future…

A NEW MONETARY SYSTEM for THE ELECTROSPHERE

©LLOYD GILLESPIE 1991-2003

---

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

©LLOYD GILLESPIE

---

"All problems using crude money must be overcome to survive the future eco-techno-electrosphere."
"Anyone who thinks the use of crude money will not be necessary in the future is crazy!"
"The present electronic world is diminishing collective opportunity ––– fast!"


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

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

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

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

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

The one-fifth level mentioned above does not require being instituted at the twenty-percent level. The system can safely evolve to the twenty-percent level in small increments per year –– through the guidance of the new social contract laws we pass. At present, most every nation of the world is governed approximately twenty-percent by the external forces of multinational trade and international financial flows. "INTERNAL EXCHANGE CLEARING" simply moves the control of the functioning of the mechanics of these markets from external malfunction to internal function. It does not change any actual control of these real and complex markets. They are still free to function as is even after institution. The real change only takes place internally, where we set government in competition with existing business at the one to twenty-percent over time level. By this I mean a reduction in present nationalization from its some forty-percent level to its new twenty-percent level.

To accomplish the above, a national set price "P.X." will be instituted, where one to twenty-percent of everything from dust to diamonds is available to all comers alike –– citizen and entrepreneur alike. This is a government created independent "P.X" market totally separate from all present existing businesses –– yet set in competition with all existing business to create truly competitive and fair markets for all players and citizens alike. This market by the very existence of its instituted mechanics automatically controls all inflation, exchange rates, and prices into fair and equitable balances –– once and for ever!

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
L.A. Gillespie

Metaphysics of Emergence

Metaphysics of Emergence A Strange Kind of Being Emerges; Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. http://holonomic.net/me00a02.pdf 

A post by, Beate Reszat from my twitter account...

The foreign exchange market in London in the 1920s and a newly arrived young financial journalist with a passion: wp.me/p1tpdQ-1A9

A Universal Geometry of The Mind’s Eye P=NP Complete __pic.twitter.com/c8Q592pO15

A Rational Morality...

A Rational Morality

By, http://intelligentparty.wordpress.com/

I’ve found on a number of occasions that people who conceive of morality as something handed down from on high don’t understand how there could be any alternative to that view. “If you don’t get your morals from [deity of choice], where do you get them?”The frequency with which this line of questioning appears demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of what sort of a concept morality is and how we can coherently define it. The assumption at the heart of the misunderstanding is that morals must be things in the world—not necessarily that they must be tangible, but that they have an existence independent of the human mind. For a person holding this view, morals are fixed, constant, and external.
(Continued below the fold.)

The Source
This notion of external moral values is equally ludicrous whether the perceived source is a deity or a dictator. Morality is a value-based judgment system, a human-created way of applying conceptual labels to human interaction and decision-making. These labels, the words of moral judgment—good, bad, right, wrong, just, unjust—have no real-world referent, the way ‘pencil’ or ‘babboon’ do. They only exist in the abstract, which is to say that they only exist as products of the human mind, and this is the only way they really make any sort of sense—as linguistic constructions for describing and evaluating human behavior. People intuitively understand this, I think, but they persist in thinking of moral values as something existing independent of human reason (and often not even accessible to human reason).
Nature certainly doesn’t make sense as a source for morality, given that nature (pathetic fallacy aside) has no particular interest in whether we act “morally” or “immorally.” This is to say that two actions, one “moral” and one “immoral,” may have markedly different consequences, but nature has no real investment in one over the other for the sake of adhering to a moral system. Examined in this light, moral actions are not qualitatively different from immoral actions from any perspective other than a human one. The only distinction between actions, from a natural standpoint, is due to a difference in the direct consequences of those actions. Any attempt to claim the natural world as a source for arbitrarily chosen moral values is bogus, and is most likely an attempt to rationalize a supernaturally-based view of morality.

Defining the System
It is important for us to understand why morality exists, what purpose it serves in human discourse. Morality is most readily understood as a system we impose in order to make our lives easier—in terms of both individual quality of life and overall utility—and to turn them into something other than ‘kill or be killed.’ In its rational form (as distinct from the sense of ‘public morality,’ where things are arbitrarily chosen as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for no logical reason), it is a product of extrapolating from rational self-interest. The impulse towards morality is not, fundamentally speaking, an impulse towards treating people justly or fairly for its own sake, but rather an impulse towards treating people justly and fairly in the hopes that they will treat us in such a way. An appropriately chosen moral value within such a system is one that strikes the right balance between self and other, in the sense that the negatives of obeying it ourselves are balanced out by the positives of everyone else obeying it. The most obvious example is the widely held moral prohibition against killing for reasons other than self defense. This is an appropriate moral value for us to hold, because we can reasonably (there’s that word again) expect that the desire to not be killed is more or less universal, that the convenience of not worrying about being murdered will outweigh the inconvenience of not being able to slit the throat of someone who pisses us off. That this is often overlooked in moments of passion in no way invalidates it as an ethos—it just means that there are situations in which people will make decisions based on something other than morality.

Extrapolation and Universality
You will undoubtedly notice a certain degree of speculation within such a system. This is unavoidable, practically speaking, given the overwhelming numbers of people on the earth; it’s not even remotely feasible that we interview the entirety of the human population, in order to have a truly universal representation of human desires. We must rely on experience and reason to give us a sense of what humans value, and which of these values must/should be considered unimpeachable—life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc. As we’ve previously established, reason is the only universal language available to us for discussing and analyzing these issues; emotion is not irrelevant, especially when utility and happiness are so closely linked, but the fact that something makes us feel good doesn’t in and of itself make it a universal good in any sense. And there is a need for morality to come from a universally accessible source, because otherwise it becomes meaningless as a system for human behavior. If, say, concepts of morality were bestowed by Hypothetical Supernatural Entity #1, and Hypothetical Supernatural Entity #1 was only perceptible to a certain subset of the population, then the rest of the population couldn’t be fully participating in the system, in the sense that they wouldn’t have any direct access to these “moral values.” Likewise, there is a need for some sort of universal morality in our increasingly global culture; if ever there was a time when different cultures could function with drastically different moral systems without affecting each other, that time is long since gone.

To What End?
The end result of this sort of moral reasoning (post-conventional, under Kohlberg’s very useful rubric, which I expect I’ll discuss again at some future point) is less clear than the merits and methods of the process itself. The only coherent theory of morality, it seems to me, is one which falls under the heading of a social contract, given the lack of justification for drawing moral values from external (non-human) sources. We identify, by careful reasoning, certain values which we all implicitly agree to live by, in order that we may enjoy the advantages of civilization over a more animalistic, survival of the fittest system. The logistics of this are troublesome, as is determining the ideal relationship of morality and law, but the point is that we must embrace a rational definition of morality, wherein we recognize that moral frameworks exist only insofar as we create them and impose them on ourselves and, by extension, on others. It should also be recognized that morality is not, from a broad perspective, a necessity; rather, it is a particularly useful system we’ve concocted to keep from killing and raping and stealing from each other (which is to say: to keep from being killed or raped or stolen from). The sooner we recognize the necessarily rational nature of moral judgments and stop trying to assign some absolute “moral” status to random beliefs and prejudices, the more just and pleasant our world will become, and the less we will abridge the fundamental rights of others.
–Urizen