I’ve been trying to clearly articulate the relationship between cycles in the neural economy, novelty-seeking within it, attention-seeking, self-‘busying’, responsibility, and mindfulness. In particular, the problem the simple folk have with self-busying vs attention.
I want (as always) to produce an operational (physical, intuitionistic, classical) explanation of how physical biology produces differences in behavior, and how that behavior manifests across the spectrum of classes, thereby creating a value-neutral system of explanations.
–“I admit I have trouble focusing on your work here myself because it is so arcane. But obviously good stuff is coming out of it.”–
I suppose it all does seem ‘arcane’ (great word). But that’s the same in any field. We’re just not used to thinking about our intuitions feelings and mental processes in unambiguous, causal, scientific terms. And we don’t like the ‘doubt’ such knowledge subjects us to facing.
–“Yeah. I have no existing framework onto which to apply your concepts here. It’s like Heidegger’s problem: He felt he had to create a new language to describe the philosophical concept he was trying to get across. Though I imagine you are anti-Heidegger.”–
Well, that’s a great analogy and question. I’m anti-Heidegger because he continued the phenomenalist tradition granting priority to experience. In the sense that he exhaustively tried to solve the hard problem by inverting verb and noun I’ve got to give him credit.
For my part, because English is a terminologically dense language with rigorous high precision low context grammar, I merely had to take advantage of converting series of terms into measurements, and require complete operational transactional sentences. ie: Precision vs Neologism.
So P-Logic, Vocabulary, Grammar, and Law was easier to develop out of the English language by the nature of the English language. But (a) it gets wordy, and (b) terms are unambiguous measurements, not ideal types (c) transactional sentences require some ‘thinking’.
It’s work.
But again, P-logic, vocabulary, grammar, and law are much like geometry, in that you have to construct statements, sentences, and arguments as a sequence of possible operations – not use whatever term you’re most familiar with. And it exposes whether you know what you think you do.
Now, anyone who’s learned to speak colloquial English has had some challenges learning to speak grammatically correctly; more so learning to write clearly and grammatically correctly. And operational prose evolved from work on writing clearly. So P is another level of CHALLENGE.
And subsequently, once you can write operationally, the next challenge of writing causal explanations in first principles.
And once you can do that, the next challenge is testing for reciprocity and testimony (morality and truth) in display word and deed.
Next, is Authoring Laws.
So, once you can climb that ladder – a ladder that is very similar to learning a programming language and a large-scale business application and its datatypes, you can completely understand P-logic, vocabulary, grammar, and law – which is the logic of testimony about the world.
Learning P-Logic, Vocabulary, Grammar, First Principles, and Law:
- Learn to Disambiguate Terms into Series producing Measurements
- Learn to construct complete transactional sentences in operational terms using those measurements.
- Learn how to construct explanations of those transactional sentences from first principles.
- Learn how to construct tests of reciprocity and testimony against those transactional sentences constructed from first principles.
- Learn how to author laws using all of the above.
- Learn how our P-Constitution constructs the formal logic of political orders.
- Learn the european group evolutionary strategy as the origin of the science of human cooperation embodied in the european tradition and accumulating in the P-Constitution.