Source: Original Site Post

I am struggling so hard with trying to simplify operational epistemology. To communicate such an idea you have to tell a story. And that story is like an onion, with layers from the historical trends, to the available ‘technologies’ (forms of argument), to the the logics, to the three categories of epistemology, to the structure and limits of human mind, emotion, and action. And I am having such a hard time figuring out how to tell that story. Originally I told it as a battle between the english, french, german/italian, and jewish/russian. Then I decided to take it back to the ancient world as sparta, rome, athens, byzantium, Baghdad, Jerusalem, and Egypt. Then I decided to take it back to the dawn of the indo-european (aryan) expansion. (the pre-soviet russians being the closest culture to original aryanism that we can vaguely understand). Although it appears, that the original culture dissipated by ‘softening’ in the west – brecause we largely rule our own kin – and ‘integrating’ elsewhere, and then dying off everywhere else. The opposite strategy of the chinese, which was to wall off their end of eurasia as we probably should have walled off our end of eurasia at the Urals. … And I had to do this historical restatement because it allows me to demonstrate how we have been defeated in the bronze, iron, and steel ages by the same means. At that point I can discuss the failure of the enlightenment due to the multiple waves of counter-enlightenment. The french-puritan, german-italian-catholic-socialist, and jewish-russian-marxist, all trying to defeat the empirical, darwinian revolutions. … But then I have to get very serious and deal with the differences between religion, ideology, philosophy, logic, and science; then how the logics map to either necessary and scientific or arbitrary and meaningful systems (Paradigms, theories, logics, operations, grammars, vocabulary ), then the difference between axiomatic, algorithmic, and theoretic systems of argument. then the various spectrums of decidability we call ‘truth’. And then the various uses of fictionalism. And then how falsehoods are constructed through various methods of suggestion. And I have to continuously defeat our tendency to drop into the black hole of idealism – the enemy – along the way. Then I have to address grammars, vocabularies, as abstractions of logics, and then … start with operational grammar, and its applications. And then work my way through all the stuff people want answers to. And … ugh. No matter what I do I feel like I will lose the audience on that journey. Even if I start with “here is where we are going, and its a long way there”. I mean. Damn. The whole month of October on this. And one frustrating and exhausted day after another…. And no FB friends to vent to… lol. Sigh.

I am struggling so hard with trying to simplify operational epistemology. To communicate such an idea you have to tell a story. And that story is like an onion, with layers from the historical trends, to the available ‘technologies’ (forms of argument), to the the logics, to the three categories of epistemology, to the structure and limits of human mind, emotion, and action. And I am having such a hard time figuring out how to tell that story. Originally I told it as a battle between the english, french, german/italian, and jewish/russian. Then I decided to take it back to the ancient world as sparta, rome, athens, byzantium, Baghdad, Jerusalem, and Egypt. Then I decided to take it back to the dawn of the indo-european (aryan) expansion. (the pre-soviet russians being the closest culture to original aryanism that we can vaguely understand). Although it appears, that the original culture dissipated by ‘softening’ in the west – brecause we largely rule our own kin – and ‘integrating’ elsewhere, and then dying off everywhere else. The opposite strategy of the chinese, which was to wall off their end of eurasia as we probably should have walled off our end of eurasia at the Urals. … And I had to do this historical restatement because it allows me to demonstrate how we have been defeated in the bronze, iron, and steel ages by the same means. At that point I can discuss the failure of the enlightenment due to the multiple waves of counter-enlightenment. The french-puritan, german-italian-catholic-socialist, and jewish-russian-marxist, all trying to defeat the empirical, darwinian revolutions. … But then I have to get very serious and deal with the differences between religion, ideology, philosophy, logic, and science; then how the logics map to either necessary and scientific or arbitrary and meaningful systems (Paradigms, theories, logics, operations, grammars, vocabulary ), then the difference between axiomatic, algorithmic, and theoretic systems of argument. then the various spectrums of decidability we call ‘truth’. And then the various uses of fictionalism. And then how falsehoods are constructed through various methods of suggestion. And I have to continuously defeat our tendency to drop into the black hole of idealism – the enemy – along the way. Then I have to address grammars, vocabularies, as abstractions of logics, and then … start with operational grammar, and its applications. And then work my way through all the stuff people want answers to. And … ugh. No matter what I do I feel like I will lose the audience on that journey. Even if I start with “here is where we are going, and its a long way there”. I mean. Damn. The whole month of October on this. And one frustrating and exhausted day after another…. And no FB friends to vent to… lol. Sigh.