THE THREE SETS OF IDEAS, AND WHY I EXPECT CRITICISM There is a great difference

THE THREE SETS OF IDEAS, AND WHY I EXPECT CRITICISM

There is a great difference between 1) the set of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism – which I am fairly certain solves the unification of the fields of philosophy and science, and 2) the Western group evolutionary strategy of Sovereignty which I’ve explained by USING that set of ideas. And 3) my particular solution to constructing a condition of sovereignty today via constitutionalism as a means of eliminating the second abrahamic defeat of the west.

And I am aware that those that cannot grasp any of those systems cannot also grasp that they are three different things, and that one’s criticism of the second and third says nothing about the first. Or that the first, as far as I know, survives all possible criticism.

Under Testimonialism, no single dimension of a fully accounted truth proposition is closed, and therefore no logical or mathematical, or ethical paradoxes exist. And while I originally, intuited ‘something wrong’ with mathematics ( for which one of my closest friends, a mathematician was frustrated) I was swayed by these kinds of nonsense mathematical arguments myself.

At present I understand that we can only close a dimension of reason (logic and mathematics for example) by appeal to the next dimension. And that in the end even Testimony (a full accounting of all the dimensions) cannot be closed (Critical Rationalism) – for no other reason that any description we can give relies upon incomplete knowledge of a universe with what appears to be non distillable causal density.

So I take it as ‘a cost of doing business’ when people criticize me, or criticize my work, because I understand how very few people grasp Acquisitionism+Propertariainsm+Testimonialism. (What I call Propertarianism, but which I should probably call Testimonialism). And I accept that my use of Propertarianism to express western civilization’s group evolutionary strategy (and the strategy of all other groups and civilizations) is offensive. And I understand that people may not like or desire to live in a nation-state where truthful speech in the commons is a legal obligation.

So I understand when people both conflate the three different projects, and construct criticisms, or express skepticism, or disapproval or ridicule: they are simple people. But as simple people they assist me in improving my argument until those who are a bit less simple may grasp it with effort, and those who are not simple are attracted to what they intuit are answers to problems that I have solved.

I conduct my work in public specifically so that I can attract (worthwhile) criticism, and therefore produce a work more thoroughly tested than i could by merely talking to myself about it so to speak.

So it’s quite alright. I know the difference between myself and all but a few as we struggle on the edge of human understanding.

That said, I am extraordinarily cognizant that i’ve completed and explained the success of the scientific method and unified philosophy and science. And if only a handful of people understand that, then that’s fine with me.