WHY IS THE P-METHOD SO DIFFICULT TO INTUIT? Because people think it’s philosophy

WHY IS THE P-METHOD SO DIFFICULT TO INTUIT?
Because people think it’s philosophy – it’s not.

We aren’t trying to determine if something is ideally or analytically, true, but whether it is testifiable (possible to claim as true).

So if one of the criteria isn’t satisfied, then you drill down on it, until you determine it’s constructed from first principles.

So as I said you need the whole package of: 1) ternary logic, 2) evolutionary computation 3) by continuous recursive disambiguation, 4) irreducible first principles that result from that disambiguation, 5) the demonstrated interests that result from those first principles, 6) reciprocity that results from those first principles and those demonstrated interests, 7) the criteria for decidability in satisfying the demand for infallibility, 8) and the criteria for testimony that results, 9) and the grammars and the method to produce languages as measurement to achieve with the language in which testimony is expressed, 10) and the means (Logic) of error bias and deceit, 11) producing the capacity to identify what is ignorance, error, bias, deceit, denial, projection, undermining, sedition or treason, 12) thus identifying whether the individual’s truth claim (or false claim), is the product of the failure of due diligence due to ignorance or error, or conversely an incentive to deceive by bias, and deceit.

The relatively common inability to know this criteria, and work through this criteria, is understandable, given the rather shallowness of human cognition. But this is not a matter of cognition but one of calculation. Or rather algorithmic testing. So while it takes only a few hundred pages to describe all of the above, the capacity to master it is no less difficult than the mastery of economics and law together.

Cheers