Form: Short Note

My opinion is, and has been, that Ayelam is the only person who fully understands my work *as i do*. He is very smart and was a PhD student in the philosophy of science that i rely upon. He has been a profound influence on me and my work and is the person I turn to in private when frustrated.

My understanding of the work is that Testimonialism is rock solid, and that I have defined the science of producing fully decidable algorithmic law, and a value neutral language of ethics, politics, and law, and completed the enlightenment by solving the question of social science.

Where we differ is that I have the experience of writing artificial intelligence and I am more confident in the statement that all thought is justificationary, and testimony is as difficult to learn as mathematics and literacy, and that this is the scientific means of historical analysis.

I think my use of the terms aristocracy priesthood and burgher refer to specializations in three modes of coercion, and thus the upper classes in these groups are equally superior in their specializations, producing three competing hierarchies organized by different means. So my use of aristocracy is a narrow definition that i understand people misinterpret.

But his criticism of my position that the method of decidability in any civilization or culture that each calls truth equally explains all civilizations and their rates of development, and that the uniqueness of the west is reducible to martial truth (deflationary reporting) rather than storytelling ( justificationary ) and the combination of heroism, truth, sovereignty, common natural law, and markets in everything – due largely to territory and technology at in the age of transformation, is a *theory*.

It is a very, very powerful theory. I have a great deal of confidence in this theory. I believe it will be extremely difficult to defeat that theory. But at present it is only a theory. So in those senses, I agree with his criticisms.

But understand that we both operate from motivated reasoning because of our differences in background and circumstance, which I believe are reducible to ownership and value of prior investment in domestication and its rewards. A difference which merely proves my points.