Form: Reply

ON CHRIS LANGAN – I’M NOT DISMISSIVE.
via YT
—“Chris Langan has the answer [to religion] with logical theology, logical interpretation of Christian scripture. … Have you done a detailed breakdown of this? Have you had an interview/debate with him? I fear that it would be extremely foolish to be insulting or dismissive of Langan, in that he strikes me as an important asset/ally.”— Anon

OUR DIFFERENT MISSIONS
First, Chris and I have different purposes in mind, because we’re seeking to solve different problems.
I’m trying to prevent more lying in public to the public in matters public and save our civilization from the current female-jewish-abrahamic-marxist generated second collapse of european civilization using the female, jewish, abrahamic, marxist method of sedition, by deception, using baiting into hazard and social construction.
I have done this by the unification of the sciences whether formal, physical, behavioral, or evolutionary. But my purpose is to produce legal decidability in matters of real or potential conflict across the spectrum of human cooperation.
I would, additionally, have to produce a religion that did the same, and I think I know how to do that, though whether it would take root is another thing altogether.

LANGAN’S MISSION
In my opinion, and it may not be his, Chris is trying to do what he says he is, which is create that unification including that of philosophy and religion, for the purpose of producing a metaphysics, that can, as a synthesis, function as a foundation unifying theology(psychological), philosophy(rational), and the sciences(material) so that the full spectrum of people can function together by the same ‘system of measurement’ whether psychological, rational, or empirical.

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
And while I don’t know if he has understood what I have said to him, my argument is only that I agree with his approach, and agree with his solution I just disagree with some of his claims about it as other than for that purpose.

In fact, I came to a very similar conclusion by very different means and I would say with enthusiasm that his approach is one of the three or four possibilities, with the only ‘leap’ being the anthropomorphism he includes.

So it’s not like I disagree with his mission or his solution, but I do disagree with technical aspects of it, and claims about it, because that is what intellectuals in the same spaces do: identify errors of one another.

I have no doubt that could Chris understand my work (once it’s published organized and clear) that he would understand what I am doing COMPUTATIONALLY and the similarity with what he’s doing by MATHEMATICAL ANALOGY, but that I would suspect he would say my work was insufficient for the provision of the purposes he intends just as his work is insufficient for the provision of the purposes I intend.

Now, have not been in possession of my full faculties for a few years now, and they’ve finally returned. So I might do a better job of communicating with Chris at this point. But I would say that the overlap between our methods and our propositions is quite substantial and I would agree that my work is insufficient for the provision of the religion he seeks to produce unifying people DIRECTLY in the POSITIVE (prescriptive) just as my work seeks to unify people INDIRECTLY in the NEGATIVE (proscriptive).

Conversely, I would also state that we both had to do this work outside of the academy (university, cathedral complex) and that we are both too intelligent, dominant, and disagreeable to tolerate those environments, and that the fact that without knowing each other, and by pursuing very different paths, using very different methods, we ended up with very similar conclusions.

So, the fact that I might be critical, skeptical, and somewhat disapproving doesn’t mean I’m entirely dismissive or that I don’t understand or appreciate his methods, his arguments, and his conclusions.

THEREFORE
(1) I’m not dismissive.
(2) yes we have argued a bit
(3) It doesn’t take a detailed breakdown since it’s a simple matter of premises.
(4) his anthropomorphism is interesting and yes it might help to use that framework as a religion of sorts.
(5) but it’s not ‘true’. It’s what’s called a fictionalism. Or what you might call disparagingly a lie or a fraud if it weren’t that he’s trying to construct a religion that if anthropomorphized and fictionalism is at least based on reality.

So I’m not dismissing it. I’m objecting to his claims about it as other than a fictionalism (what he smoothes over with ‘metaphysics’ as his supernatural foundation of his claims).

So tell me that it’d be an advance in religion that’s fine.

That’s a claim to utility pragmatism or good.

Tell me it’s ‘true’ and then I have to object that it’s clearly not.

My work is true. That may not mean it has the same utility outside of decidability, truth, politics, economics, and law.

Cheers