Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

(from elsewhere)(re: christ langan)(thx to Chris Cameron) I’m subject to the same criticism’s Chris, for the same reasons, and I sympathize with the problem of working outside the existing paradigms, career reinforcement, and institutional defense of them. Moreover I understand that due to the world wars, we experienced a catastrophic intellectual failure in the early 20th century. And the Marxist-Postmodernist pseudo-scientific religion has obtained near dominance of the non STEM academy, as well as the media and state – places dominated by those on “Island 120″ and the pretentious who wish they were. And so some of us (albeit the very bright) are experimenting with compensating for that failure, and counteracting the pseudoscientific religion of the academy, media, and state. But I can identify the dependencies upon which my arguments rest. 1 – operational language as a grammar of decidability for the elimination of pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology. 2 – reciprocity as means of decidability in matters of conflict. 3 – eugenic vs dysgenic as a means of decidability in matters of policy. 4 – the contingency of all non trivial premises, facts, and theories. etc. (quite a few more). So, while I have known *about* you for years, I haven’t looked into your work. And not for the reasons the Island 120 complain (a series of logical dependencies beyond ordinary people’s ability to construct and maintain constant relations) but because a) I don’t have any idea why ‘god’ matters (and I don’t care), and b) I don’t know (and can’t find) your dependencies, and c) I can’t afford to invest in your work and discover them myself. Because all axiomatic systems can eventually be internally justified, but it’s the survivability of the axioms (criteria of decidability) that they are dependent upon, rather than the explanatory power, and benefits of that explanatory power, that permit their survival as truth candidates. So, can you point me to some set of such ideas? I have a set of fundamental ideas in raw form that people have criticized as a means of gaining entry into a complex system of though. Do you have those somewhere? Thanks (sincerely) Curt

(from elsewhere)(re: christ langan)(thx to Chris Cameron) I’m subject to the same criticism’s Chris, for the same reasons, and I sympathize with the problem of working outside the existing paradigms, career reinforcement, and institutional defense of them. Moreover I understand that due to the world wars, we experienced a catastrophic intellectual failure in the early 20th century. And the Marxist-Postmodernist pseudo-scientific religion has obtained near dominance of the non STEM academy, as well as the media and state – places dominated by those on “Island 120″ and the pretentious who wish they were. And so some of us (albeit the very bright) are experimenting with compensating for that failure, and counteracting the pseudoscientific religion of the academy, media, and state. But I can identify the dependencies upon which my arguments rest. 1 – operational language as a grammar of decidability for the elimination of pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology. 2 – reciprocity as means of decidability in matters of conflict. 3 – eugenic vs dysgenic as a means of decidability in matters of policy. 4 – the contingency of all non trivial premises, facts, and theories. etc. (quite a few more). So, while I have known *about* you for years, I haven’t looked into your work. And not for the reasons the Island 120 complain (a series of logical dependencies beyond ordinary people’s ability to construct and maintain constant relations) but because a) I don’t have any idea why ‘god’ matters (and I don’t care), and b) I don’t know (and can’t find) your dependencies, and c) I can’t afford to invest in your work and discover them myself. Because all axiomatic systems can eventually be internally justified, but it’s the survivability of the axioms (criteria of decidability) that they are dependent upon, rather than the explanatory power, and benefits of that explanatory power, that permit their survival as truth candidates. So, can you point me to some set of such ideas? I have a set of fundamental ideas in raw form that people have criticized as a means of gaining entry into a complex system of though. Do you have those somewhere? Thanks (sincerely) Curt