The Route to Operational Grammar

I’m trying to find a way of artfully explaining the difference between teh ‘verbalists’, (Cosmopolitans) and analytic logic, through to the ‘Turingists’ or Algorithmists, and then to operational logic. and I really don’t want to defecate on the analytic movement so much as get across the point that identities(math) and sets(‘logic’), just like empiricism(correspondence) are not sufficiently closed – or rather, cannot be closed. And worse, after first order logic, I am not sure that any of the rest has any more value than does game theory. Game theory might explain why we do soemthing but no actor ever engages in more than first order logic. So instead, if we start from operations, we are including the maximum commensuralbe, non-imaginary information, in our arguments. And that even then, truth propositions cannot be closed. If they are then they are no longer truth propositions, but tautologies. Since to requrie testimony requires information be provided.

SUPERNATURAL (ignorance/stasis) (myth, scripture, command-law)

Zoroaster -> Abraham ->

…|-> Rabbinicals->

… … … |-> Christians -> Augustine -> (The Lost Millennium)

… … … … … |-> Islamists -> 20th c. Fund.

IDEAL (via words/meaning) (literature, scripture and arbitrary law)

Plato -> Kant ->

… … … … |->Marx(Soc.)

… … … … … … |->Rand-Rothbard(Lib.) -> Hoppe

… … … … … … |->Trotsky-Strauss(Neocon)

… … … … |->Frege->Kripke

… … … … … … |->Cantor->Keynes

REAL(SCIENCE) (via actions/truth) (math, science, and common law)

Aristotle->Bacon/Newton …

|->Locke/Smith/Hume

… … … |->Jefferson/Adams -> Hayek

|->Poincare ->Hilbert

|->Babbage ->Boole -> Turing

… … … … … … … …… … … |-> Chomsky

|->Darwin -> (Many) -> Wilson/Crick ->

|->Maxwell -> (Many)