Nov 19, 2019, 7:26 PM
ANOTHER CRITICISM IN RESPONSE TO MY LETTER TO CHRISTIANS
A “proof” of possibility of construction is detailed for a reason.
—“I understand that you are unable to form concepts into abstractions, so you can only go into concepts in total detail. However you don’t speak or understand any truth. All you do is break down the informational contend of concepts, however you do so using dialectic, making these concept much harder for people to understand. You take the simple concept and make it incredibly complex. You think this makes you smart but it doesn’t, it means you are above average intelligence, but not highly intelligent. So you can find the concepts, but not build an abstraction from them. This is why you have a small internet following and you write overly detailed complex books, videos and articles. I hope you can close the gaps within your mind between the truth and reality of your life, so you can live a happier and more fulfilled life. Rather than wasting your life continuum on breaking concepts down into information content.”— John Best
What is it that you think my job is?
That’s analogous to saying that macroeconomics, microbiology, chemistry, and fundamental forces aren’t reducible to simplistic terms for simple people to grasp. Well, they require education. So does P-logic require education. And we are ‘educating’ the public as best we can, with a revolution on the scale of the Aristotelian, Empirical, and Darwinian.
As for detail, I have a higher resolution understanding (model) of the world, in more precise terms, and in more simultaneous information. And that level of detail is necessary to explain the CAUSALITY of psychological social and political phenomena.
It’s one thing to try to come up with yet another non-sense-ism ideology, and something else to complete the aristotelian program, provide wilson’s synthesis, and convert man’s traditional empathic moralizing into a science expressible in value neutral language.
So Aristotle had a hard time, Smith and Hume had a hard time, Darwin did, and I’m having a hard time. And arguably it takes a century or more for these ideas to launch. The average idiot still thinks arguments can be ‘proven’, evolution has a direction or intent, and production is a fixed-pie.
Mathematics, geometry, calculus allow us to measure the world so that we err less, and have greater agency. P-Logic works just like mathematics, by breaking the world of psychological, social, and political concepts down into measurements (commensurability) so that we err less and have greater agency.
One does not need to master higher mathematics to benefit from what those who do master it measure, comprehend, and discover. One needs only NOT claim that ‘because it’s hard it must be false’.
Likewise, the fact that P-logic – like say, the calculus, or electromagnetic fields, or economic equilibria – formalizes psychology, sociology, politics and that the result is somewhat complicated as are the calculus, fields, economies, says nothing other than it explains why it has taken so long to discover that logic: it’s the hardest one so far to model.
You almost certainly have not read either Menger, or Keynes’ General Theory, and probably not Darwin, or Hayek, Turing, or Chomsky’s short papers. I doubt you’ve read Kant, or Hume, or Smith. And I’m almost certain you don’t know the debate between Hilbert and Einstein or what they said and why … but you live a life constructed of their scribbles.
It’s not important you understand the theory. it’s only important you understand the CONSEQUENCES of the application of the theory.
If someone else had been able to do what I have, they would have. They haven’t. And so they haven’t been able to achieve in psychology, social science, politics what I have. And I have only because the internet is available and I have research from every discipline at my fingertips – so the ‘cost of production’ of synthesis (collapsing all disciplines into one language) has been reduced to zero.
But in all previous generations, people like me didn’t have the internet so they couldn’t experiment with working in public. I’ve run the experiment. John is running the experiment with whether it’s possible to break these ideas down and communicate them to ordinary people. So far he does better than I imagined was possible. That said, he’s not trying to teach you how to define something like testimonial Parsimony as a supply-demand curve, or as we’re working on now, the economics expression of reciprocity and forbearance vs tolerance.
I understand religion just fine. I understand that the church shut down Stoicism for one simple reason: it makes religion unnecessary. I understand why the left is shutting down rule of law: it makes politics unnecessary. I understand why the left – and the faithful – will try to shut down testimonialism: because it makes propaganda unnecessary.
And without religion, politics, and propaganda necessary what use remains for lying.
So please explain to me what I do not understand. Because so far, I have found very little in the mind of man that I cannot understand, and increasingly less I cannot convert into a formula.
Perhaps you should find time to investigate what you do not understand – because there is something to be learned there. Instead of searching for what you do understand, in case an opportunity may be found there.
If anything could be found in what has failed, men would have.
There is a lot to be found in P.