Emotions, Desires and Ambitions__The Human Condition…

Imo, emotions, desires and ambitions is enough to generally explain the human condition, and its being limited by law and money__which in turn can be developed into a theory to explain the present global capitalist system, and how it can evolve to a better system of engineered law and money_to truly benefit the human condition…

First, just look at your own condition, and compare it to someone your age with a $$$1 billion dollar trust fund. Skip the part about you wouldn’t want the trust fund, and just purely theorize the conditions of liberty and freedoms afforded to the person with the fund much, much larger than yours, and don’t put the moral implications in, just pure theory, first_morals come later. By doing this little experiment, one is quickly confronted with the real limiting factors of one’s own life_by the real laws and money factors involved.

Let me further take this into the abstract theorizing. Iff humans are restrained to action, within the bounds of their own money capacity, and the state is respected to enforce its laws against you breaking them, then we can inverse this process to show that money and law truly do control and limit everyone’s emotions, desires and ambitions. Now, this truly reduces our freedoms more than most are willing to admit, but let’s take the experiment a bit further, by imagining all us humans as mechanical robots__with emotions, desires and ambitions replaced by scientific energy sources of actions. What would be the total energy sources needed to emulate total, and I mean total_personal to scientific and economic, etc._human actions?

These are the questions I asked myself back in the `70’s and `80’s to allow myself to factorially design new governing systems, at least abstractly theorizingly-wise, with both infinite imagination and finite logic__You’d be surprised at the power of such use of the mind__Just try it… Now, take the entire robot model above and emplace it in place of the 6 billion + humans on Earth, and replace the money system with batteries, and the law system with electricity systems to recharge the batteries. Theorize the entire system’s potential to design and operate the real world us humans inhabit, now. By totally thinking this model through, one quickly can realize it’s truly a scientific problem we are up against, and not a strictly speaking human condition, as limited to our emotions, desires and ambitions__But a problem limited to our faulty intellectual assessments of these lesser ideas and problems.

Next, use the analogous model above, yet turn it back and forth between robot and human realities, as you add the necessary changes to the human world, to have it function as a robotic world catering to the human condition and nature’s improvements of the global commons. Let me give a hint of how to do this; Just theorize yourself with $$$100 trillion dollars, yes that’s Trillions I’m speaking of__and self-build a perfect world of law and money function of incentives_protecting against over-debts, inflation and poverty_not just a system that functions for a short time_but for all time_and this is possible__Think... The second clue would be to start with an easy model of absolute price freeze laws world wide, though this is only a temporary theoretic state of mind, to see the greater picture of possible re-engineering of money systems. Next, figure how to add in permanent incentive action laws, and fair wage laws to all, yet connected to the existing over-debted system’s functions_not to crash the existing system.

By exercising the mind in such a way as above, one will quickly realize the new re-engineering powers that must be added to governments’ options, of actions over laws and money, to make such a system function. Remember, this must be a self-liquidating national debt structure system, which when thoroughly viewed, one would realize is a tax-liquidating system also. The final clue to work with is to realize the present 80% competition of free enterprise must be put in competition with a 1/5 government price controlled enterprise system, permanently instituted as a government P.X military style fixed pricing and distribution system, to compete loosely against the 4/5ths totally free system__thus having over time the power to curb all price increases and that old Fear-demon of inflation and hyper-debts.

Let me know if that helps or hurts your theorizing abilities…

The Old Academics vs. The New Academics...

If we compare the old to the new, what is the most glaringly obvious difference? I'll state it's deciding the new by democratic votes of what is and what is not knowledge__And the old was decided by the true mathematical logics, and this seems to apply to most fields of study. So what's to be done? Do we go with the old academics to find the truth, or do we adapt the old more sound mathematical logics onto the new? I would suggest there's far more valid and even up-to-date information and knowledge in the old, thus it would be a wiser course to use much of the old information and knowledge as a modern foundation, and definitely use the old's method of science, in all cases__Then adapt the new facts and real knowledge truths of, to the old methods and facts. But I warn, deciding what's true of the new, is one massive problem, as it's been so decided by democracy views__lacking mathematical and logical validity__it's quite a treacherous road to hoe...

Just take the two probabilities that presently exist__The sound mathematical probability logic of facts, and the unsound probability theories of mathematics and conflated logics.

.Probability / | \ Probability
...........Logic / | \ Logic
.Academics / | \ Academics
.........Truth / | \ Truth
Knowledge / | \ Knowledge
Democracy / | \ Democracy
_________ rrr

Hope is Hope...

A Gov. God-Head of True Power_Intelligence Can’t Be Linked to Power Til Power Is Defined…

The Rightful Symmetrical God-Head Power of Government…
The Symmetric Incentive Power of Proper Government…
‘Intelligence added to greed(larger perspective and longer term view) turns to wisdom…’ S.A.
Intelligently defined power over the greed machine…
The Laws of Greed:
#1.Principal demanded beyond principal issued, creates greed…
#2.A % of principal, gov. issued beyond principal plus interest, ends greed…
#3. Islamic philosophy’s zero interest rate banking through triple entry banking__Keynes’ bancor__One international currency à One wage distant future à The wisdom logic of greed’s full knowledge circle, and application of law’s computer controlled programs, over the greed machine…

The Paradigm Shift__From complexity to common sense__From empire to 1st community...
Ya 'gotta' have a simple scientific method, to teach a system...

In good ol’ `72, I had a major epiphany, as I’ve mentioned before, but it passed so quickly, I didn’t recover it again until `82. When it did finally return, it was embellished with that further 10 years of life’s rich experiences, as I’d been studying everything under the sun, to try and recover that massive vision I’d earlier experienced. It was late in the afternoon, on a sunny Fall day, when I walked into my shop and accidentally knocked over a stack of books. One of my encyclopedia science year books fell open to Einstein. I thought it strange that Einstein was staring up at me, with his scraggily hair, so I picked the book up and saw the caption under his picture; “The secret of the Old One.” My mind immediately filled with that epiphany I’d experienced most exactly 10 years earlier.

The epiphany was the global super-conscious vision into a possible future semi-utopian, fully scientific model of a new organization of money systems, and the greed machine of human nature and law controlling them. The very first thoughts were of the very depths of greed and power, and what they truly were, and exactly what controlled them both__yet not until yesterday, with Steve’s post about intelligence being added to greed, did I fully see the dynamics of how this old epiphany truly had to be dealt with__and thanks to Steve, I’ve a new conception of the true governmental power relationships to greed, and how it must be dealt with innately, to possibly reach the masses of individuals__to solve this crucial problem, of humanity’s inability to, thus far, connect truth and wisdom to power.

I’ve often asked myself and others this very question, and it’s the very first post, a year and a half ago, on my newest blog. I’ve personally referred to greed as that inner/innate dynamic that is the core operative of all our desires, all the way from our best emotions, to our grandest schemes of logic and money. It’s the true power-center of our very essence, yet most see it as a thorough evil, but wait a minute__It’s absolutely necessary and like all agents, has two sides of function__the bad, as well as the good, and it’s the good side we must try to see through, as most of us already see far too much of greed’s bad side. Now, you may say; ‘How can greed have that much of a good side?’, especially as relates to government and pure power? Well, that’s the mystery of this lil’ ol’ demon.

It’s truly and purely governmental power, we must educate to acting intelligently about greed, and not the people, per say. Actionable intelligence over the greed machine by governments, would be the greatest advancement of civilization, oh who knows where and when from, forever… Iff we as common citizens, can develop the vision of what’s truly needed to guide government policy decisions over this one area of the greed machine, we could drastically change the world, for the better. Greed needs be inversed/eversed to see how it truly functions. Years have passed since John Law tried to failingly show the government of France how to use the printing of money to enrich the nation and her people, but, What truly went wrong with his ill determined experiment in the mechanics of greed?

He failed because he did not realize greed had to be balanced by greed herself, to have any excess printing of free-money succeed, but this one drastic failure, which left France bankrupt for two generations, is what scared the pinhead academic community from ever looking further into the real mechanics of the government run greed machine__and this is the real failure of all modern governments__Not realizing the power over the greed machine, they truly actually have. Governments, academics and citizens must realize anew, that money can be semi-free-printed to governmentally control the greed machine against itself, thus creating a new symmetry of money’s actions__To truly benefit all humankind__By realizing a new dynamics of supply and demand can be divided by supply and demand itself__to function in an almost perfect balancing act_of private and public enterprise__by the formula of E=1/5X of total exchange trades__which would allow the fairest wage and pricing system, the world has ever known…

I’ll leave this here for now, as most probably think it’s a ghost writing such words. Anyone seriously interested though, may simply ask any question, or make any suggestion they feel appropriate…rrr

East Meets West__Innate Corporatism & Why...?

"Hi Lloyd...how can corporations be the best ordered state?? Corporatism is Globalism...."
"...corporatism is the foundation of fascism, slavery, constant consumerism, the creation of enslavement to debt and non-stop merging and immersion into materialism as the only important thing in life..."

Hi Mikal, Leskey and all, and thanks for stopping by as you are all welcome. And Leskey, I also recognized our similar directions of mind, but being new to the site again, I figured I’d see if your interests be perked enough to join us_Thanks.

Now, to answer Mikal’s query as to my statements about corporations. It’s not that I like this position any better than the majority of people on Earth, it’s just the evolutionary reality handed all us awakening webonites, can not be overcome as fast as many would like. Let me just give a simple example/problem with change-too-fast; most all people either own or rent homes_a necessity_This means all such people are already locked into 30+ year mortgages or lifetime rents_i.e._signed contracts already controlling our future actions_next to unchangeable. Next; most all businesses/corporations/govs. have the similar contractual obligations 30+ yrs. into the future. My point is that about 80-90% of the world is already bought and sold(contract wise) to a future many of us do not want__But this fact_we all must face. So, this is a very limiting factual condition on the type of real changes possible. The future contractual obligations, not only of corporations, but most all people's livelihoods as well, are definitely on the line here, in any serious thoughts of social-eco-eco-politico-changes.

Now, don’t get me wrong__change is possible within certain and specific geometric contexts, enabling real benefit to the greater good of society at large_but we must see these simply explained complex realities, and add them to any ideas we are thinking about of real changes possible__Not to destroy the health and safety of our very beings, as culturally evolved systems. And as Leskey has wisely pointed out, and is also a major vision/view of mine, the inter-disciplinary successes of recent are picking up the unification speed far beyond what most are aware of. I’m truly beginning to see academic unifications in many areas of otherwise disparate fields__and ideas within fields being well understood in many areas_as well as the new_since last Sept. `08 crash__a new desire to learn to unite, as we are all trying to do here at ToeQuest. Though I may sound the trumpet of pessimism at times, I also am becoming very optimistic about what I see happening. I on the one hand see it separating, yet on the other hand see it coming together__Only time will tell.

As far as relating more about your statements above Mikal, and which I expressed to my daughter in that last post, it would be due to the future contractual obligations, already in place, that requires us to transitionally evolve through a new and much better balanced form of corporate capitalism_as bad as globalism and excess consumerism are_than to bring the whole house of cards down around our necks, which may happen anyway, by trying to jump capitalism further and faster than is possible to mechanically/functionally take place__That land of danger of ‘Change Too Fast’ is real__Many nations have tried that in the past, and look what happened. But within, the system is malleable to__by sensible standards__massive middle road changes. One must realize that most all arguments are taking place between two extreme sides of all issues__And no-one’s advocating for the true, and almost invisible, middle position, which is my position. No-one on the international scene, web or anywhere I know of has actually drawn up a detailed middle way ‘capitalist’ path since J.M.Keynes way back in the `20’s and `30’s__Every political party, in every nation, has simply been arguing against the extreme opposites, leaving the argument ‘For’ any middle path_completely in a void__No-Body Home…! That’s the place we all need stand, and fight to design and implement new and feasible middle-way systems.

I will be getting to that middle-way geometric structured system later, but for now lots of the fundamental questions must be talked and answered. SB has posed many over on Labelwench’s thread… Just as a final note on your concerns above__many of your fears can be eliminated if we evolve the true middle-way possibility, to whittle the corporate dragon down to sensibly functioning standards, and more sharing of their resources for individuals and the common good, while taking better care of the Global Commons…

Quote:"I have faith that not all of us are pushed by the adrenaline of fear...some are pushed by good common sense and others have turned fear into courage and strength. I do believe we can persevere through change!"

And I agree with these above statements completely, and not to make this post any longer for now, I end here with a big thanks to all participants…rrr

p.s.
Here's where we are: LINK
Here's where we can go: Link

(Conversation that preceded the above:...)
The only problem is Sb, we've had a world that's already tried that, and we know it doesn't work, nor can it work__in the world as thus far financially evolved. My daughter took a look at all my economic system charts one day, and immediately recognized its expressive values and truths, but upon looking closer she noticed I'd shown the most perfect state possible with corporations still having slightly more rights and money than the people, even in what I'd relayed as the fairest state possible.

She then asked why I'd represented the best ordered state as such, and I simply said, even as bad as we may dislike certain actions of the most powerful, they must have more to pay us a middle way fair wage. If not, what would be their incentive to build the businesses that employ most of us. She, recognizing the dynamics said, Ohhhh. All have to be fair and recognize the necessities of all, including the necessities of building much more fair law systems, than we now have. It's a rather serious affair...

I wish it were as easy as one wage, but Mao proved that impossibility long ago. Now, that doesn't mean we can't work to improve systems to the point that one day, we can do away with money systems, but reality requires a transition system of sensible laws to arrive there, without us all killing each other, in the process. So, it's more complex than simplicity, yet no where's near as complex as our academic and financial communities have mistakenly made it.

The problem SB is the adrenalized fear state of all humanity, and it's getting worse, the faster, faster, faster we go...rrr

p.s.
You may have faith in the human condition improving. I have zero faith in the human condition improving. Even the most enlightened Zen Buddhists estimate that only about 1 to 3% of the world has ever been enlightened, at any one time, and none expect the numbers to improve. Adrenalized fear is immune to change without force, and I don't mean violent force, per say, but a large enough group of people demanding the unfair laws be changed, to the fair and much more equitable laws, but that means everyone wanting change must agree on a feasible system of laws first, and that even seems near impossible to even me, but law change only takes a very small % of the society to accomplish just that...
__________________
"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
"The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G.
"The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.

The Inverse Conflexivity of Mind, Common Sense & Lucid Visions of Nature, Humanity & Materialism___Ontology of…

The above title is obviously copied from my last graphic… The ontology of humanism and materialism is a subject argued about since the dawn of organizing, and organized society. Ontology is the "metaphysical science or study of being," as per the online etymology dictionary; http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ontology&searchmode=none I am here extending it to the total actions of being, to include nature, and being’s materialism, yet it must be discussed metaphysically, until I may be able to later show a scientific method to better explain this subject, which I full well realize is very dear to many hearts. I simply think we can contribute much more to constructive dialogue and pragmatic action, if we can bring the metaphysical understanding more toward the real scientific understanding. This will in no way destroy the metaphysical ground of true heartfelt being, as there are many, many questions science can never answer; but there are also far too many dilemmas of social organizations left floundering in totally un-necessary arguments, by not scientizing that which should be scientized; and what should not be scientized, and can not be scientized, should be left to the metaphysical realm.

How do I know what should be scientized? It’s not a question of me knowing what should and should not be scientized; It’s a simple matter of that which can be scientized, will be scientized, and there’s not a soul on earth who can stop it; or anyone who should stop it.(If these areas turn dangerous, I leave it to the courts and laws to deal with.) As no-one can stop the inevitable, just as no one can stop evolution from being true, or DNA/RNA from being true and beneficial to humanity. The arguments we all witness in the public forums over these issues, and those over humanism and materialism, are completely un-necessary if one simply realizes, each side of these issues is simply ‘reacting’ instead of acting with one’s own common sense and intelligence. To make this simpler to explain, let me use the political spectrum of left and right issues. The humanist left reacts for their own desires, yet in truthfully looking at these actions, is actually reacting against what they perceive as their liberties being reduced, so react they do. The right is just as guilty as the left at ‘reacting’ against the left, in fear of their liberties being reduced, so react they do. Neither side of any of these humanist/materialist or leftist/rightist issues is acting in their own best interest__No-one on either side of any of the contemporary issues offers a truly workable solution to either side’s desires__Not the other’s or their own.

The only solution is to see these differences with a new vision and perception of inverse conflexivity, which requires lucid vision and perception of self-awareness, by being other-aware__Also. The easiest way to accomplish this is to completely invert the picture/image/movie within one’s mind, to thoroughly see it in its opposite light. You’d be surprised what this can accomplish. Let me just give you an example. I once asked at a conference when greed was mentioned; I asked, “What is greed?” Of course most thought it a ridiculous question, but I pressed the issue thus; “Truly and deeply think about this__What is greed? What really causes greed?” Finally, after considerable questions and debate, they started taking me seriously, and began to contemplate it, as they’d taken it for-granted, all their lives. They thought they knew what it meant__but realized they truly did not know what caused greed, thus couldn’t truly know what it was. This came as quite a shock to the entire group, after the conversations finally got moving. So, what is greed, and what does cause greed?

This is where the inversity of conflexivity comes in. By turning mental images/mentalities up-side-down, and looking at them anew, one is able to see an entirely new thought process within their own imaging/thinking processes. Just try this; take the issue you think and care the most about, and reverse your views completely about the same issue. It’s actually the same as taking the other person’s view, you hold opposite views of, and making them your own. When one does this, it allows one to climb directly into another’s mind, without even having them present; then you can actually see what’s missing of their thought system, as reflected in your thought system, by direct and total comparison. And if one is honest enough to realize the missing pieces in another’s thinking, through this thought inversion, then one must realize the same may be missing in their own thinking, as deep conflexive inversions are usually symmetrical, even of opposing views, images, concepts and perceptions. If you don’t think so__Just try it__and be honest about it…

Not to leave you in the dark about what causes greed, and what it truly is; here’s my experience of it, as I was once a businessman, who’s very being was being taken over by greed; until it repulsed me enough to close my business, and return to a normal job, working for the man. Greed is induced by several combinations of factors; the major being childhood pride and vanity induced by self, parents and friends, but when one has more money and opportunities than others, and showing off comes natural, the main culprit is adrenaline feeding these weak childhood passions, into habits of worse habits feeding on each other. Once pride and vanity begin swelling, fed by adrenaline, the greed junkie is born, never to stop__unless repulsed as I early was(businessman at 21 yrs. of age), yet I still suffer the disease of showing off, as I am still an adrenaline junkie with a damaged ego__Once a junkie, always a junkie. Mine is no longer greed, it’s just being a show-off junkie, but I was once a severely damaged greed, vanity, show-off and pride junkie of pure adrenaline and out-of-control ego…

False & True Philosophical Utopias…

(Anyone wishing to follow these debates as they take place: Click Here)(click image for larger view)

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

The above quote is the central premises of explanation of my graphic, in my first post this month. If one studies the depth of Peirce’s statements related to my graphic, the truths are represented by the three center circles, which can actually be the three conceptual/perceptual and non-perceptual selves, as one fades, one is present ‘I’/being, and the third is the self “coming into life in the flow of time”. The reason I’ve chosen conflexivity is I didn’t feel the present terms actually covered all the actions taking place in our mental processes. Others have chosen the words, ‘Abduction’, ‘Reflexivity’ and ‘Reflexive Control’, but it’s more than a mere reflexive system__The deepest mind states are a truly conflexive process. By conflexivity, I mean, as an analogy, say an epiphany, which is a split second lucid vision into the super-consciousness of one’s own mind, or as some would believe, into the super-consciousness of all minds or even a universal mind. The reason I choose ‘con-’ is it has the meaning, when added to ‘flexivity’, of being two or many processes in one, especially as relates to a small split second’s epiphany, having the massive power of vision to reveal such a large amount of information, it’s often over-whelming to retrieve at that moment. It may take years or even decades to understand the entire meaning of such epiphanies, as I’m sure many of you have experienced, and for this reason and the explanation’s complexity, I’ve chosen the word conflexivity. If one looks up ‘con’ in the online etymology dictionary at; http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=con&searchmode=none one will quickly see the utility of the many meanings, which suits my purpose well, as I intend, over the next 6 months, to relay an entire system of philosophy, by a method I’ll later explain. For now, it’ll be from a universal standpoint of eclectic genericity. By using a general method, it allows me to take in all the breadth of universal facts and beliefs, and at the same time allows a perspective of the depths of particular facts and individual beliefs, desires, habits and ambitions…

So as not to become bogged down in constant extreme debates between others varied views and ideas, and my own, I’ll be responding with general impersonal expositions of my ideas, as loosely relates to others’ ideas. My methods have their main foundations in the early Jains, Nyaya, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Euclid, Eudoxus, Nicomachus, Archimedes, Apollonius, A.Biruni, Avicenna/Ibn Sina, A.Magnus, F.Bacon, Boole, De Morgan, W.Clifford, A.Schopenhauer, C.S.Peirce, T.Veblen, W.Durant and L.Kolakowski. The three I’m most impressed with are Ibn Sina, C.S.Peirce and L.Kolakowski, as all three offer eclectic universal genericity perspectives. Both Ibn Sina and C.S.Peirce offered complete philosophical systems, including all views of human thought, i.e., Logic, Physics, Metaphysics, Spiritism and complete category systems to boot. These two are the only ones who offered all of human thought in one person, and respected all aspects of these diverse mentalities of history, therefore I have a great deal of respect for them, especially as offering a great helping hand to unite the many dis-united schools of thought, mentalities and ideas of our present ‘crazy’ world.

As to the ‘False & True Philosophical Utopias’, this will be an ongoing discussion about “The Mentalities of Histories” as Kolakowski has named them. This ‘mentalities’ has far greater conceptual representational power than say, ‘The History of Ideas’, ‘The Intellectual History of Eras’ or ‘The History of Concepts’, as ‘The History of Mentalities’ can represent anything from the smallest personal individual in depth idea, to the largest universal open conceptual ideas of the planet’s evolutional mental state, as expressed by people such as P.T de Chardin, E.Schrodinger, D.Bohm and even J.Lovelock. I intend to discuss most all the false utopias of leftists and rightists, i.e., Marxism, socialism, communism, the Heinz 57 totalitarianisms, the Heinz 57 capitalisms and anything else that comes up as relates to social philosophy, social justice and a possible evolution to a true state of pure liberty, based on the complete ‘Inversity’ of present state law system understandings, through full explanations of what ‘Inverse Greed’ truly consists of. This may sound like a tall order, but I assure you I have simplified the process greatly over the last two years, by graphing, tabling and charting these processes and methods with an analogical/visual representation that’ll become obvious as we progress. I’ve named my entire philosophical system ‘Aneology’, which means ‘One Visual Logic…’

Not to make this post any longer, I’ll end here for now…

P.S.
The Q, C, and X, as represented above stand for Q = quantum states(though all 3 are quantum change states), C = biological cells, and X = foreign exchange markets, as so emplaced. These letters can be replaced to represent all central actions of brain/mind states, or other states of complexity of the nations' systems and world systems, where complexities yet unsolved exist. In other words I could have the letters, M = minds, P = photons, and C = concepts, etc., etc. Just as in all algebras, the letters are interchangable as per the topics of discussions proceed. As per the drawing's box informations, they are all chiralling cycloid motions of photons, as photons are the family of bosons, which allow super-positioning/cloning, etc., as per Einstein, which allows concepts to merge from lesser states to greater vision states, then fade to emplaced memory states. Future diagrams and explanations of the mechanics will form the entire picture of a working brain/mind model and possible and necessary probable world mechanics of...

The reason foreign exchange is included is it represents one of the largest areas of incomplete complexity(and many others will be shown in future posts), similar or symmetrical, information wise, as that of deep brain/mind mechanics of hypotheses formations, and possibly a clearer method of future explanations, since any internal mind states, not completely understood, can more easily be represented by symmetrical relationships of external real world states(I'm drawing the symmetries of actions from E.Noether and her statements of physical states in relation to the symmetries of the laws of physics and nature, and the required conditions of her theorems_She's one of our most important global resources of unifying thought). Just as morality can not be agreed to internally(the epistemic dilemma of 'free will and responsibility'), other than our individual prejudices learned by age 18, as per Nietzsche, this same internal moral state can be understood through its symmetrical external relationship of the desires, ambitions and habits of entire communities' esthetic liberty actions, as represented by the real world accomplishments we see around us, which actually exists by the original moral desires and ambitions of individual choices, and this way morality is actually externally/objectively, scientifically measurable_over time. As an example, we all enjoy living in comfortable houses, as per living in cold, damp caves_that's a moral/happiness personal choice we all make. Though some may not see it as a moral choice, one only has to think about the more compassionate condition of wife and children's comfort of house compared to cave, then one sees the moral/happiness implications. This will also be given through future graphs, tables and graphics, with their related explanations, and showing how to measure not only morality, but a closing of many of philosophy's epistemic and ontological gaps...

Hope that helps...

And as per logic of, logic simply tells us the true and false condition states of our reasoning, and no more, i.e., reason asks/contemplates the questions/doubts, and logic answers the condition states of... Of course, many conflate logic states with Aristotle's syllogistic 3 laws of logic__I use Ibn Sina's, Boole's, Lobachevsky's, Grassmann's, De Morgan's, Clifford's, Peirce's and Vasiliev's much extended logics, over Aristotle's less extensive reasonings...

The Blind ‘Black Box’__Ergodicity...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth." CSP

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Triadic Logic, Universal Processing Engine

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

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

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

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

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

Links for larger version of graphics...
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiI_Ccy6DSH9kaBdxOd254OL1STgZ8MmJnjGzFmlCVAswzLV_VZCgsvIvn6oVJEfQaDoo6dC8vHMb0FVjb3u7Mid5x8m3XGRUfySZU2vxP_RwsdjvQBjbJGCfeMg8jwauAV4bGJNqPsyBpr/s1600-h/Reflexivity.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4RphBK7n4m-Lm5m5QCA7uOZxYi4CQLuAZOxb0XMybgyLXcJN-MP48K8aw2fDQQlA6SLFif8xea9v5znhAPIM216ShFUv1vSGmV25E7BV2uqgU85g6DlRIPd21j46l7CfvFmPl8sh5Oh0/s1600-h/PeirceMil.jpg



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

One Lucid Diamond...

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

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

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

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

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

The Great Mathematical Instincts__P=NP

IS “MATHEMATICAL SCIENCE” AN OXYMORON WHEN USED TO DESCRIBE ECONOMICS? by Paul Davidson
The Economic Mind of Charles Sanders Peirce
The Ignorance of Bourbaki, by A.R.D.Mathias
SOME VIEWS OF RUSSELL AND RUSSELL’S LOGIC BY HIS CONTEMPORARIES, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO PEIRCE, by IRVING H. ANELLIS
From Peirce to Skolem: A Neglected Chapter In The History of Logic, by Geraldine Brady
Lectures on Jacques Herbrand as a Logician, based on Peirce-Schroder Logics_The Godel Link
Peirce's Logic of Continuity: Existential Graphs and Non-Cantorian Continuum, by Fernando Zalamea
International Interdisciplinary Scientific and Practical Journal, REFLEXIVE PROCESSES AND CONTROL

"The mathematical laws of reasoning are, properly speaking, the laws of right reasoning only, and their actual transgression is a perpetually recurring phenomenon." George Boole
"The logician affirms, that it is impossible to deduce any conclusion from particular premises." George Boole
"... no general method for the solution of questions in the theory of probabilities can be established which does not explicitly recognise ... those universal laws of thought which are the basis of all reasoning ..." George Boole

"As a material machine economises the exertion of force, so a symbolic calculus economises the exertion of intelligence ... the more perfect the calculus, the smaller the intelligence compared to the results." William Johnson

"When I started to trace the later development of logic, the first thing I did was to look at Schröder's Vorlesungen über die Algebra der Logik, ...[whose] third volume is on the logic of relations (Algebra und Logik der Relative, 1895). The three volumes immediately became the best-known advanced logic text, and embody what any mathematician interested in the study of logic should have known, or at least have been acquainted with, in the 1890s.

While, to my knowledge, no one except Frege ever published a single paper in Frege's notation, many famous logicians adopted Peirce-Schröder notation, and famous results and systems were published in it. Löwenheim stated and proved the Löwenheim theorem (later reproved and strengthened by Thoralf Skolem, whose name became attached to it together with Löwenheim's) in Peircian notation. In fact, there is no reference in Löwenheim's paper to any logic other than Peirce's. To cite another example, Zermelo presented his axioms for set theory in Peirce-Schröder notation, and not, as one might have expected, in Russell-Whitehead notation.

One can sum up these simple facts (which anyone can quickly verify) as follows: Frege certainly discovered the quantifier first (four years before Oscar Howard Mitchell, going by publication dates, which are all we have as far as I know). But Leif Ericson probably discovered America "first" (forgive me for not counting the native Americans, who of course really discovered it "first"). If the effective discoverer, from a European point of view, is Christopher Columbus, that is because he discovered it so that it stayed discovered (by Europeans, that is), so that the discovery became known (by Europeans). Frege did "discover" the quantifier in the sense of having the rightful claim to priority; but Peirce and his students discovered it in the effective sense. The fact is that until Russell appreciated what he had done, Frege was relatively obscure, and it was Peirce who seems to have been known to the entire world logical community. How many of the people who think that "Frege invented logic" are aware of these facts?" Hilary Putnam

"...to design logic as a calculating discipline, especially to give access to the exact handling of relative concepts, and, from then on, by emancipation from the routine claims of natural language, to withdraw any fertile soil from "cliché" in the field of philosophy as well. This should prepare the ground for a scientific universal language that looks more like a sign language than like a sound language." Ernst Schröder

"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." (5.423)2 C.S.P.

It has been duly noted that great minds exist all throughout history, but have you ever found many in agreement, except in the fields of pure and applied mathematics(not withstanding foundational exceptions of 1.number, 2.space, and 3.order.)?

If we are to ever understand a computerized computational intentionality of the spirit of humanity, we must first land in the solid ground of a sound scientific method. In order to have a sound scientific method, one must clearly identify exactly what that method is. In order for it to cover a large enough area of ideas, it must be of the nature of genericity, on the one hand, yet in order to be exactly clear, it must also be able to cover the specifically particular, on the other hand. The only language possible, to fill this technical order is simple, and or, complex mathematics, as logic herself carries far too much intellectual baggage from its long history of true, false and exaggerated interpretations, yet mathematics, or basic arithmetic, draws the ‘necessary conclusions’ we are looking for, and only she does so.

In order to use a basic arithmetic, one must specify the subject area with pure and exacting logic method, as only the basic pure logic has the tools, of course and fine grained definitions, explanations and understandings/comprehensions, required for such a potential task. Minds may understand each other in many other forms of expression, such as spirit, psychology, philosophy, sociology, etc., but only logic can cover such a vast territory as what I wish this post to express. Therefore, I’ll join the most fundamental maths and the most fundmental logics, into a fully explicated process. This process first needs a much deeper analysis and explanation, to proceed further.

Many societies, East and West, first made use of the early maths’ and logics’ systems, but our records only become fairly complete with the early Greeks, so this is where I wish to start. How did they develop their foundations of maths, logics, and knowledge method systems of? This is where it’s really quite simple__marks in the sand, and angles on their lean-to’s, plus the circles in the sky. And what did the early Greeks first work in? Lines, angles and circles. And how did they first make them? Again, marks in the sand with straight edges, strings/sticks and points(compasses), and these two created circles, from which all other accurate figures can be drawn. And all from these first figures and maths, comes the algebras of angles, areas, magnitudes and multitudes(so to speak). Now, this is of course an over-simplification, but we only need the basics of simplicity, as it’s the basis of all complexities, and therein lies our fundamental logical method__Idea, action --> method. The early Greeks, as well as all other early peoples, just looked around them, accidently found or guessed the idea(abduction) present in the real world, turned it to action(mental induction/inference/will), and created the fundamental methods(abductions/deductions/inductions) of both logics and maths.

What have we wrought on this simple perfection, except extreme excessive complexity? Nothing much of extended value, that can not be handled by these earliest of mathematical and logical ideas, methods, systems, and simple geometries. Pythagoras may not be the true father of the formula of his name, but he’s who popularized its use, so it matters not who created it, as long as we recognize its true fundamental logical property of a potential method creation. Of course, it’s not the earliest method either, but it’s the earliest most useful method, as it produced one of the world’s most useful formulas, even to this very day, and possibly created ‘pi’ on the way. Not much in the world would have been built square and aesthetically pleasing without it. All modern engineering still uses both its method example, and its simple maths and logics, spawned from it. So, the question I ask is, “Do we need an any more complex method, logic and math to truly solve for all the world’s problems, even P=NP?” And I say we do not…!__with the caveat, that they be extended through all the modern inter-relations, integrations and extensions, from their original planar geometries and logics, to spherical geometry and logic, to projective geometry and logic, and finally to matrix geometry and logic, to handle the newest complexities of the conformal logics, maths and truths. These are not as complex as has been purported, when proportionalities are recognized and realized as the basic method of all, as the original Pythagorean logic, geometry, and algebra is a fundamental universally proportional system. These are simply basic method extensions of our understanding of the fundamental Pythagorean/Archimedean/Nicomachian systems, into logarithms, linear, scalar and polar co-ordinate systems and cross-historical-time inter-relations and integrations of.

No doubt, this comes as a total shock to almost any mathematician, logician, scientist, philosopher or whomever, yet it’s what I intend to prove, in the rest of this post. It’s simply the over-complexification of methods, that’s holding the world hostage of attaining its true and full potential, and the above truths are all that’s needed to expose the fallacies of the last 5000 years of academic mis-steps, senseless arguments and her many anti-truths involved. We’ve ended, as of Sept. 08, in the overly-foolish situation where the sematic web has become completely parasitic on the pragmatic web, or in other words, where the false intellectual/academic actions have sadistically become over-parasitic and monopolistic on the true physical actions of reality. Anyone who doesn’t believe this had better review the numbers at C.H.I.P.S.(clearing house inter-bank payments system, i.e., global transactions turnovers) and the B.I.S.(bank of international settlements_i.e., derivatives transactions turnovers), then you can also look at the globe’s T.F.P.(total factor productivity) over the last year, then over the last thirty years, at the I.M.F. and World Bank. It’s rather disgusting__the last thirty+ years de-regulations into near insanity, at the least, total inanity…

Enough of the disgust, insanity and inanity. I’d like to now dedicate the rest of this post to the Peirce’s, Benjamin and Charles, as without their inter-relational algebras, logics and maths, this post would not be possible. Though Charles’ system of logic and math, founded on his father’s, DeMorgan’s, Jevons and Boole’s, was never thoroughly finished, Joseph Brent’s ‘C.S. Peirce, A Life’ offers enough information to complete it, when added to all the secondary authors’ contributions, over the last hundred years. As you may know, Charles Sanders Peirce was, and wanted to be, known as a logician, and that he certainly was. IMO, the best logician the world has ever produced, bar none. He stands far and above all the authors of our entire history, as it’s his ideas, grounded in basic instinct, and their extensions and relations that make possible a truly new computational intentionality, which can be thoroughly computerized, as a total embodied mind mathematics and logic, or as a totally new arithmetic-logic.

Though their relational systems were never fully related and transposed on historical systems, all throughout history, into the powerful system they portend, this is what I intend to show. Stated simply, C.P.’s system can unite and explain all possible mathematical and logic processes, past, present and future, in a model, having a universal standpoint of eclectic genericity, yet fully mathematize most all real particulars, at the same time. This only requires a true logical, analogical method of the math integrations, not yet seen possible.

Please download these files at: http://www.flipdrive.com/flipdrive.php to follow the rest of the text. The user name is, lgillespie , and the password is, wolf9999 , 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+, and please view files in print preview, on MS file menu, for full and correct details) As a prelim to these graphs explanation you may want to read this: A Universal Philosophy of Pure Liberty, Natural Money, Aesthetic Ecology, and Value Validity Proofs of Peirce’s Pragmaticism and Abduction… as it’s directly related, but it’s not necessary, as I’ll give a new explanation related to this post’s graphed method direction. If interested, you may want to download the other files below the 1st eight, as they relate completely to this work. They are my comparison charts and papers of related notes, which I’m working with to write my recent posts…

Toward the end of his life, Charles worked out a new system of e-graphs and categories to compliment his life’s work in logic, to make it more easy to analogically understand his system of thought, as at the time, knowledge was not generally high enough to fully understand his complex system, which was really so simple, it seemed complex. It’s basically just his admitted deeper extensions of our basic logical and mathematical instincts, but most don’t realize how powerful our deepest basic instincts truly are, when fully explored, as C.P. did. Everyone thinks they know what fundamental logic is__they do not, right to this very day. Just to give you an idea, I’ll ask this question, “How does fundamental pure logic differentiate, or make distinctions, between its ego-self and fundamental truth?” Peirce’s method was the fundamental mathematical continuum, which he realized from Plato’s, Kant’s and Boole’s systems of the fundamental laws of mind. Now, some may say how do you find a fundamental law of mind? That’s a fair question, and one that was answered long ago by Plato, Kant and Boole. Plato’s was the esthetic nature of rationality or ratio, that is the ratios of mathematical rationality of the law systems one is living in and designing anew. This can only be had by abducting ideas from the general universal continuum of infinity, but you may ask how can one abduct or deduct a ratio from infinity? The simple trick is to start with true mathematical equilibriums, then the ratios of rights accorded to citizens is a simple proportion according to the method of designing fair laws through the rational processes of greater goods and best orders, as per Plato. This simply requires a knowledge of fairly incentivized liberty, which Plato had in abundance, as he was also a first rate economist/sociologist, for the times. It isn’t a matter of deducting from infinity, but realizing infinity can be represented just as well by arithmetic equilibriums of large magnitudes and multitudes, and simply subtracting equal proportions by ratio for the possible rights to be granted to citizens, as one for each, two for each, three for each, etc., which gives one the pure mathematics of a future state of pure liberty potentia. From there, it’s simply a matter of comparing intelectics, dialectics, intellects and politics, then adjusting the society’s laws and constitutions toward achieving a close proximity to the stated ideal incentivized liberty potentia, or simply using C.P’s ‘Metaphysics of Habits’ and ‘Science of Logics’ to design scientific methods and models of better laws, constitutions and societies.(Addendum__Remember, only math proves logic in the raw, i.e., empirically from a priori ground. In order to further understand the above infinity continuum, it’s easier to imagine a triadic infinity continuum. That would be the pure unbounded infinity, and it’s two related bounded rational infinities, i.e., the largest and smallest rational, say Cantor, numbers, or as I’m visualizing them above, as two large virtual, cardinal number series, bounded rational infinities of equal size, thus equilibriums, to draw the real number series from, just as similarly, as Kant originally may have done. He more than likely only used the space continuum of infinity to draw his numbers from to build his ‘Universal Law of Liberty’ model, but I find the explanation above more analogical, with this math model. And, in mathematics, as long as our ground is true and allows a possible real potentia, we may substitute virtual systems for real systems, just a 1 and 0 are substituted for all and none, all throughout modern maths. Even the early Greeks substituted reals for virtuals, and vice versa in their geometric algebras. And it’s only by our ability to draw(abduct) from a future infinite continuum potentia, that we are able to build new mathematical-logic model possibilities, to solve real world problems, as deducting from the past only allows trite re-arrangements of the troubled existing. All truly new ideas(hypotheses) are drawn(abducted) from the future continuum possibilia, and inducted into the present, as possible change, scientific-logic, methods and models.)

The next great mind C.P. relied on was Kant, and his similar idea, more than likely copied closely from Plato, which is translated in Kant’s ‘The Metaphysics of Law’, as ‘The Universal Law of Liberty’, which is also the same mathematical-logic method as per above. Kant describes it even better than Plato here; LINK. C.P. also relied on Boole for his, ‘An Investigation of The Laws of Thought’, which is available at LINK. Both Kant and Boole related their systems from the same continuum/space of mind which Plato used, yet Plato under the names of Forms, Archetypes and Universal Ideas and Ideals. It was simply the same ‘Internal Continuum’ he was referring to, when dealing with mathematics. All, including Peirce and most mathematicians, refer to this same continuum to draw(abduct) new ideas, ideals, methods and systems from. Formalizing methods and systems is simply the process of formulating the fairest mathematical-logical and esthetic laws and constitutions possible, as the epistemic process breakes down at this level, and the social matrix of both the internal and external continuums must be used, transposed and fused, for success, as per C.P.’s ‘Metaphysics of Habits’ and his ‘Inter-Relational Logics’. Though, this is really where C.P.’s system stopped, as he didn’t see how to use the matrix he discovered of relational systems’ logic and habits to create new law systems, and IMO, because he was continually looking at it too epistemically, when he should have realized his, ‘Metaphysics of Habits’ could be turned to creating new laws and constitutions to better society, at the ontological level of states and nations’ laws and constitutions, also. He had the complete instinctual mathematical-logic necessary, he just didn’t apply it, as he was simply concentrating far too hard on his own epistemic state of possible fame, which was the major flaw of his lifelong character, as mentioned by Brent. His ‘Metaphysics of Habits’ and ‘Inter-Relational Logics’ cross-transpose all across history, into a scientific method of arithmetic-logic, So Powerful, it can rebuild a torn and tattered world, no matter how bad you may see the future, when combined with his brilliant student T.Veblen and his studied, brilliant scholar J.M.Keynes, and on up to P.Davidson, or myself and several others, today.

‘The Missing Peirce Method’ is simply the Method of seeing his entire epistemics of self-ontology, clearly teleologically and mereologically interpreted, into a thoroughly new universal vision of ‘Geometrical Matrix Logic’, epistemics and ontology, applied to world law systems, encompassing his entire system of ‘The Metaphysics of Habits’, ‘The Science of Logic’, ‘The Economy of Research’, ‘The Economy of Philosophy’ and ‘The Economy of Ideas’. He is still the genius of genuine scientific methods and logical categorical systems’ building, when applied through our greater knowledge systems of sound ideas. Put bluntly, mind is simply extended instinct, and all we need do is understand the totality of our own instincts of interpretations of the real world, as C.S.Peirce was primarily no more than an Ideal-Realist, of the highest order. BTW, C.P. was also one of the founders of conformal projective logic and her related maths, through his quincuncial projection math, he learned through studying Grassmann and Clifford, and most likely Desargues, its truest beginnings.

Finally, let’s take a thorough look at the graphs(user name is lgillespie & password is wolf9999 then click My Drive, then click 1st 8 doc files, plus the others if you wish, as they relate) you may have downloaded. If not the rest will be too hard to follow, so please download them as per above instructions. Please use the graphs according to the numbers on the graphs, and not their file name numbers.

Graphic #1 is my model of ‘Architecture of Mind’, all the way from Plato to Peirce, on up to the present day of Dr. Paul Davidson. In this representational model is clearly shown an analogical process of mind/brain and thought actions. Perception is our knowledge generator of computational intentionality, inter-acting with all our perception agents, as per colors and boxed descriptions, plus the inter-relational arrows of essence and agent actions. To me the epistemic brain/mind is simply a triadic process through, 1.Basic emotional sensations, 2.Our 5 basic sensori organs, and 3. Our scientific, and other, intellectics, or the basic process of Peirce’s semeiotics. All is as Peirce described it in his ‘One’, ‘Two’, ‘Three’ process. This is the basic continuum of our internal epistemic agency and agents. It is an embodied mind process, and is extended into the external continuum of our personal universe, and the greater universe, yet the body/mind, IMO, is biologically limited to the speed of light, at c in vacuum. Some may disagree, that’s fine. If you care to check out the modern conformal math matrix represented, I’d suggest August Stern’s ‘Matrix Logic and Mind’. Though I don’t agree with it all, as pertains to extended mind, I do agree with most of his quantum matrix mind maths, logics and ideas.

Graph #2 actually requires graph #3 first, to offer a better understanding of the epistemic relations of #1 to #2. In #3 is shown ‘The Golden Ratio of True Liberty’, the state of law and government we are striving toward, and certainly not what we actually live in. If the Greeks had actually used their own maths’ logical truths to form their laws, constitutions and governments, the world would have long ago evolved to near scientific utopias, but the continuum has had a two-thousand+ year history of hiding these simple truths from us. This graphic is the first to show the historical cross-transposition of Peirce’s inter-relational logic abilities of explanations possible, when we fully interpret the Pythagorean’s triadic system of math, and apply it. Although the ‘Kepler Triangle’ was not part of the original G.R. drawing, it aptly fits all the way from the Pythagoreans to C.S.Peirce, J.M.Keynes and P.Davidson, thus showing the transpositional powers of vision possible about Peirce’s logic and metaphysics systems, as these graphs would not have been possible without his original sagacity. All these original Greek and Kepler idea graphics can be accessed at Wikipedia, if further interested in how they’re drawn.

In order to understand graph #1’s epistemic gap problem of free will and responsibility, just transpose/transduct back and forth between #1 and #3. When we run up against the epistemic lack of answers, we must use Peirce’s external ‘Metaphysics of Habits’ to fill the gap, as his ‘habits’ are a representation of culture’s logical laws of universal semi-liberty, from Plato and Kant, with some explanation being supplied by Boole’s logic and math continuum, also. You’ll notice the green rectangle, representing the ‘Golden Mean’ and ‘Golden Variable’. The variable is actually compliments of a friend of mine L.Stern, which actually turned out to be the best explanation of liberty’s definition, as a variable freedom within civil law and socienty. The two rectangles above and below the center one represent the space of liberty/freedom infringing on other’s rights as free citizens, of an otherwise respected liberty. Of course, it varies the two directions, at its limits and otherwise, as so shown. This understanding of the external liberty of ‘habits’ is the only truth system possible of solving the epistemic dilemma between free will and responsibility, as we should all respect a responsibility to, at the least pure liberty, if not a great deal of some parts of our present liberty system, even though full well knowing it needs changing for the better. It’s just everyone must realize, change requires the safety-net of slow sliding-time-scaled laws. Without it, we’re all dead. As I’ve drawn it, it actually represents the future state of pure liberty. For worse state representations of liberty and freedom, check graphs #7, #8 and #9. They are more or less self-explanatory, in relation to the above.

Mathematizations of the above are represented by graph #2, ‘A Triadic Cartesian Graph of Universal Logic Functions’. The mathematics of this graph was accomplished by transposing Peirce’s ‘Metaphysics of Habits’ onto Kant’s ‘Universal Law of Liberty’, through Descartes’ graphics, and can be translated by most any type of geometric algebra, i.e., planar, triganometric, polar, or conformal co-ordinates, etc. Since habits of our personal mind actually extend into the real world as our accomplishments of personal desires, ambitions and goals, which are fully mathematizable as external objects, we can enter the historical numbers necessary, and actually figure the true and entire metaphysical and logical processes of the world, and even do probability projections into the future, in general terms, as they are no more than our actions already visible in our inhabitants, homes, belongings, buildings, and businesses, but I warn, this is only a pure genericity view__as the future has many blind avenues to our possible understandings. Even all our present and past emotional actions are represented there, as emotional materialism, and fully mathematizable, whether some like it or not__It’s true. Also, all moral actions can be bumped up through esthetics(highest forms of moral actions, due to being esthetic), to rational ethics(highest forms of ethics, due to being esthetic), into fully logical actions(highest forms of rational ethics, due to being esthetic). These ideas of esthetics relations are extended representations of Peirce’s philosophical system ideas.

Graph #4 must be seen in the light of graph #3, as this is the true heart of my Peircean geometric-logic system, clearly showing the universal mathematics of not only liberty, but economics, true exchange rate mechanics, true global money and prices’ mechanics, global corporate power in relation to people’s power, the power of law, and the psychology of all involved. Sounds like a tall order, but it’s not, as you’ll clearly see just by realizing the power in inter-relational logics’ and maths’ transpostions’ potentia. Why #3 and #4 are important together is the fact that they represent the best future states possible, of all just mentioned__They are our future’s pure justice potentia. The formulas chosen are the simple ‘Pythagorean Theorem’ and Archimedes’ ‘Center of Mass’ formula. Either can be used in different areas, although the Pythagorean Theorem is the most powerful as it’s a triadic proportionality formula, thus having more representational power, and with the added benefit of being thoroughly analogical__What you see is what you get__It’s obvious truth in the eye, yet I still love Archimedes for quick calculations of many areas of systems’ logics. If you take a quick look at graphs #5 and #6, you’ll surely see the obvious comparisons. Graphs can be drawn to proportionally represent all the mathematical positions between all these extremes. For genericity’s sake, I’ve simply offered the extremes, as that’s all my method of logical genericity explanation really requires, and one must realize, I’m working mathematically only in close genericity of the facts, as some global numbers, to plug into these graphs are not available, so probable proportions must be substituted in some areas, and least squares maths, can be used for the best statistical averages of.

As to what the Pythagorean triadic squares can represent, that’s what I stated above as ‘showing the universal mathematics of not only liberty, but economics, true exchange rate mechanics, true global money and real ppp prices’ mechanics, global corporate power in relation to people’s power, the power of law in relation to corporations, people and government, and the psychologies of all involved’. And not only this, but any other triads I or others may wish to represent, such as environmental deteriation, health, and safety issues, on, on and on, etc., etc., etc. This is the potentia of the computational intentionality I mentioned at the start of this post. This simple geometric logic system is powerful enough to more than solve the world’s problems. It’s just the political hurdles the system must jump, to accomplish its true good. Yet, I think if enough people discover the clear simplicity of what’s represented here, we may have a chance of severing the stupidity of ‘Lil Ol Planet Earth’, and replacing it with true scientific methods, mathematical knowledge schools of thought, and pure sense and logic systems, for the first time in history…

I’m a true capitalist, but not the capitalism we presently have. I’m for a thoroughly changed and balanced system of laws, markets and money, capable of re-generating the yearnings of entire generations, and different classes of people, from all walks of life, of all lands on Earth. The least well-off deserve a crack at liberty just as much as the richest corporate manipulator. It’s time for the greedy, to stop starving the needy…!

The solution to all P=NP problems is solved by choosing the proper method of logics, actions and maths first, that do not exceed your computing powers. This simply means choosing simple geometric and algebraic maths and logics, to form your fundamental methods, models and ideas__then the computational math is easy enough that P=NP never becomes a problem. When complexities of too many Lie groups appear, simply convert/transpose to conformal/isomorphic proportional geometric math methods and systems, of simpler calculations. The universal law of isomorphic potentia covers all universal systems, inter-relational integrations, and formulas of…

I’ve earlier posted the complete computerized computational models of my own system’s method. It’s titled ‘Internal Exchange Clearing’, a proposal to, once and for all, rid the world of inflation, deflation, national debts, poverty, crime and war. Yes, you heard that right__LINK…

The End