Form: Reply

CURT: DO YOU KNOW CHRIS LANGAN? POTENTIAL FOR INTERSTING CONVERSATION?

Yes, but while I can understand Chris, I do not think he does or can understand my work – partly because it is so much work to undrestand – and partly because my criticism of his framing (because there is more than a grain of truth to what he intuits) is something I don’t think he could tolerate.

My Understanding of Our Differences:

Curt: I disambiguate all logics from narrative to formal cognition and seek unity between them with a paradigm, vocabulary, logic and methodology of universal commensurability. A constructive logic. This ends up with a very simple description of the natural and necessary evolutionary operation of the universe where humans are but an interesting outlier at the edge of the universe’s ability, by trial and error, to compute increasing complexity in defeat of entropy.

Chris: Chris does the opposite of trying to conflate all the logics into a single homogenous system, to make a cohere and consistent system of thought across all logics. But this system attributes agency to the universe or to god rather than necessary natural processes.

So we are both seeking coherence across logics (or what some call wisdom literatures) but from opposite directions.

But the difference, in other words, exists because Chris and I have opposite agendas somewhat in solving the problem of unification of the wisdom literatures and disciplines into a consistent system of thought.

I think you would find my work has a greater capacity to suppress error, bias, deceit, fraud, evasion, denial, manipulation, projection, accusation, sedition and treason. Because that was my intention: Law.

And this difference is largely because I set out to stop lying and false promise in public to the public in matters public particularly by the government, media, and public intellectuals, as well as finance and commerce.

And from what I can grasp I understand Chris is setting out to assist the individual in forming a universal frame of understanding of the universe without conflict between the various logics.

Of course I am willing to be wrong here, but I think at a high level this is about correct.

Both of these approaches have benefits. To some degree my work demonstrates what Chris is doing and why it’s of value.

I am not confident he could make the same assessment of mine.

Because our criteria for provision of decidability and right action differs.

Cheers

Reply addressees: @JimReckoning @RealChrisLangan