Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

I am asked to review work frequently to determine whether people should invest in learning it, or whether it’s somewhere between erroneous and absolute nonsense. Someone asked me to review your work. It’s good work. And morove, you have enough charisma and likability to make use of it in the benefit of yourself and others. But you have fallen into the trap of confusing education by analogy given one’s current state of knowledge, with understanding sufficient for deduction and calculation having exhaustively attempted to falsify one’s knowledge. This is why almost all philosophy outside of the logics (deflationary grammars of constant relations) has been nonsense for a very long time. I specialize in truth, and in particular, operational language, which ensures that the constant relations (semantics) one makes use of in his vocabulary and associations, are as parsimonious as possible, and as free or ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit, because the first premise of any set of semantic relations (paradigm) corresponds to reality in the only uniform system measurement available to man: the indifference of the limits of our actions – and is therefore least open to fictionalisms (inflations and conflations). Use of operational language is what separates engineering, law, science, and mathematics from the various fictionalisms (Theology, Pseudomoralism, Pseudorationalism, Pseudoscience, Pseudohistory) as well as outright fictions. In addition, Operational language also prevents us from creating empty verbalisms (in the same way we write fictions of the same thirty or so base narratives of state change (rise-fall, fall-rise in combination), in the same way we use different names for the few available archetypal characters. So it prevents us from *thinking we are speaking novelties or innovations rather than playing word games to justify the current state of our knowledge*. As far as I know, Power refers to the resources, agency, and sovereignty, to alter the probability of outcomes. Where agency consists of the minimization of internal and external limitations our actions both personal, economic, and normative, and sovereignty refers to imposition upon us by others due to the presence or absence of institutions. These are how the terms are used – especially prior to the postmodern attempt to undermine language through the use of fiction, ridicule, and non-operational languages (fictionalisms). We can all learn something from myths. But use of myths can also manufacture ignorance, error, bias and deceit, and as such reinforce our existing limited loose knowledge, rather than encourage us to obtain new and more precise knoweldge. Simple stories are useful for children and the simple, because they lack the ability to identify and retain complex causal relations. Less simple stories are useful for young adults who are less disabled. Less simple stories are useful for ordinary adults who cannot afford to learn anything in precision that does not directly improve their economic agency. But for those of us (including you) who are capable of free association, causally dense categorical identification, deduction from those categories, and eventual construction of systems of measurement of those categories, deductions sufficient for forecasting (either forward or backward), we are most likely (and most frequently) inhibited in reaching our potential, by anchoring ourselves with fictionalisms that are sufficiently imprecise (false) that we can never form a deductive network – and we malinvest in that network until we find in old age we were wrong. I study economists in particular, so I am conscious that Marx and Mises went to the grave knowing that they were wrong. And Russell understood that the entire program had lead to nothing more than tautology. Hopefully you find something to ponder, since you’re certainly possessed of talents. Cheers

I am asked to review work frequently to determine whether people should invest in learning it, or whether it’s somewhere between erroneous and absolute nonsense. Someone asked me to review your work. It’s good work. And morove, you have enough charisma and likability to make use of it in the benefit of yourself and others. But you have fallen into the trap of confusing education by analogy given one’s current state of knowledge, with understanding sufficient for deduction and calculation having exhaustively attempted to falsify one’s knowledge. This is why almost all philosophy outside of the logics (deflationary grammars of constant relations) has been nonsense for a very long time. I specialize in truth, and in particular, operational language, which ensures that the constant relations (semantics) one makes use of in his vocabulary and associations, are as parsimonious as possible, and as free or ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit, because the first premise of any set of semantic relations (paradigm) corresponds to reality in the only uniform system measurement available to man: the indifference of the limits of our actions – and is therefore least open to fictionalisms (inflations and conflations). Use of operational language is what separates engineering, law, science, and mathematics from the various fictionalisms (Theology, Pseudomoralism, Pseudorationalism, Pseudoscience, Pseudohistory) as well as outright fictions. In addition, Operational language also prevents us from creating empty verbalisms (in the same way we write fictions of the same thirty or so base narratives of state change (rise-fall, fall-rise in combination), in the same way we use different names for the few available archetypal characters. So it prevents us from *thinking we are speaking novelties or innovations rather than playing word games to justify the current state of our knowledge*. As far as I know, Power refers to the resources, agency, and sovereignty, to alter the probability of outcomes. Where agency consists of the minimization of internal and external limitations our actions both personal, economic, and normative, and sovereignty refers to imposition upon us by others due to the presence or absence of institutions. These are how the terms are used – especially prior to the postmodern attempt to undermine language through the use of fiction, ridicule, and non-operational languages (fictionalisms). We can all learn something from myths. But use of myths can also manufacture ignorance, error, bias and deceit, and as such reinforce our existing limited loose knowledge, rather than encourage us to obtain new and more precise knoweldge. Simple stories are useful for children and the simple, because they lack the ability to identify and retain complex causal relations. Less simple stories are useful for young adults who are less disabled. Less simple stories are useful for ordinary adults who cannot afford to learn anything in precision that does not directly improve their economic agency. But for those of us (including you) who are capable of free association, causally dense categorical identification, deduction from those categories, and eventual construction of systems of measurement of those categories, deductions sufficient for forecasting (either forward or backward), we are most likely (and most frequently) inhibited in reaching our potential, by anchoring ourselves with fictionalisms that are sufficiently imprecise (false) that we can never form a deductive network – and we malinvest in that network until we find in old age we were wrong. I study economists in particular, so I am conscious that Marx and Mises went to the grave knowing that they were wrong. And Russell understood that the entire program had lead to nothing more than tautology. Hopefully you find something to ponder, since you’re certainly possessed of talents. Cheers