Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • GOOD EXAMPLE (GODEL, CHOMSKY) —“Not quite, as Godel presented a mathematical m

    GOOD EXAMPLE (GODEL, CHOMSKY)

    —“Not quite, as Godel presented a mathematical model of this phenomenon. You cannot reduce this to mere positivistic linguistics. On which point, are you not assuming Chomsky’s universal grammar with your definition of grammar? If so, this has been shown to be unempirical.”—

    I didn’t say anything like that. I’m saying that he’s correct.

    I haven’t met anyone other than the author of the best book on the subject that understands the limit of Godel’s argument:

    (a) we identify new constant relations (experiences)

    (b) we invent new references

    (c) we invent new paradigms

    (d) we require grammars to talk about them

    (e) we can make ungrammatical statements.

    Godel said it. Turing said it. Kripke said it.

    So there is no closure to logic without appeal to the operational, empirical, limits and completeness, and even then there is only closure on falsification not justification.

    THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE IN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY:

    There is nothing positivistic in P. It’s purely falsificationary. Either it survives adversarial competition by the terms stated in testimonialism or it doesn’t. If more than one does, then we just don’t know and nothing else can be said.

    In general, i have found that the first and most significant hurdle that people have trouble with – at least those not educated in the sciences – is that all propositions are contingent and all truth propositions are achieved by falsification. And P articulates the METHOD for universal falsification.

    ====

    Afterward: Chomsky was trying to bring Turing to language. His original paper is simply pulling Turing into language. Chomsky’s contribution – from my understanding – is correctly stating that:

    (a) the brain produces experience by continuous recursive disambiguation.

    (b) linguistic thought consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation.

    (c) grammar regardless of language consists of rules of continuous recursive disambiguation.

    (d) language serves as a system of measurement for thought – albeit we use many different paradigms (metaphysics) within each human language, and these paradigms vary according to the correspondent vs the three non-correspondent (fictionalisms).

    (e) there appear to be higher demands on cognition for higher levels of thought. And we should expect aliens if there are any to use simpler or more complex grammatical structures given their abilities.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 14:17:00 UTC

  • RUSSELL’ S PARADOX ISNT. Russell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is

    RUSSELL’ S PARADOX ISNT.

    Russell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is not a paradox, it’s an ill formed statement (Grammatical error) because it failed the test of continuously recursive ambiguity – which is what ‘grammar’ means: rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. Nearly all seemingly challenging philosophical questions play on some variation of the verb to be. In the case of the liar’s paradox in all its forms, it’s not a paradox it’s constructed ambiguity. Words don’t mean things. People mean things. They use language well or not well to state their meaning – or their deceit.

    A number is the name of a position, and beyond the base (glyphs) we use ‘Positional Naming’. We can name anything we choose with a position in an order just like we can name anything else. All that matters is that we all rely on the same names in the same order. Numbers exist as names. That’s it. Nothing else.

    Mathematics is ill-grounded (vulnerable to grammatical errors) because of sets (platonic, ideal, verbal) rather than operations (gears and geometry). If you explain all mathematics using positional names, gears, and geometry (as it was invented) you do not expose yourself to grammatical errors.

    The same is true of philosophical (verbal) statements. If you state all statements as promises, in operational prose, in complete sentences, without the ‘cheat’ (or lie) of the verb to be, you will have a very difficult time make grammatical errors.

    So the entire analytic program (sets) was a failure. So was the attempt to discover a via-positiva scientific method. This is because all epistemology is falsificationary and adversarial, with surviving truth propositions competing in networks of paradigms themselves in falsificationary and adversarial competition.

    Most of philosophy is little more than sophistry. (really)

    Everything that isn’t sophistry is in the domain of science including that science we call ‘grammar’.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 13:39:00 UTC

  • Do Paradigms Really Falsify? What Does Order Mean? Operationalism in Action

    Do Paradigms Really Falsify? What Does Order Mean? Operationalism in Action https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/14/do-paradigms-really-falsify-what-does-order-mean-operationalism-in-action/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-14 15:45:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1228344592837283840

  • Do Paradigms Really Falsify? What Does Order Mean? Operationalism in Action

    Feb 12, 2020, 2:01 PM [B]etter way of saying it: There is one most parsimonous paradigm (We call it science. Now I call it ‘P-grammar’). There is no value in false paradigms. There is only value in different attempts to solve a problem within the most parsimonious paradigm. (Note: my position is that language is a system of measurement, and the p-grammars identify the paradigm, and that operationalism constitutions the universal grammar. That would mean the universe is always reducible to classical description.)

    —“All paradigms are eventually false. :)”—Rick Paris

    That’s demonstrably false. Instead, we increasingly identify limits that cause us to increase the parsimony of our theories. All scientific paradigms appear increase in parsimony. Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein all evolve to greater precision. Take Humors (disease) and Phlogiston theory (chemistry), Einstein’s static universe(cosmology), or the expanding earth (plate tectonics). They were false but they were progress in the right direction. Conversely there are three categories that always fail to increase in parsimony: 1) Magic -> Pseudoscience (action-physical) 2) Idealism -> Philosophy (verbal-rational) 3) Occult -> Theology (emotional-intuitionistic) So we have deflationary grammars of Law, Science, Logic, and Mathematics that all increase in parsimony. And we have inflationary grammars of magic(physical), idealism(verbal), and the occult(emotional) that fail all tests of parsimony. Of course we also have the outright deceits too.

    —“It is not false. The Universe is expanding, in that what is outside the current momentary paradigm is defined as the Unknown. There is always greater amounts of the Unknown shifting our perceived facts of what is known, as the Unknown is always greater < than the known. So,”No man steps into the same river twice.” is a metaphor for all physical experience. Paradigms are currently, and simply limited and only limited by belief. All paradigms are fictitious mental constructs. Attempting to measure the illogical, is useless and limited the human potential. Logic is very tedious and limits the strongest aspects of the human mind. Only the imagination (what is common sense) is the part of us that can penetrate the very fabric of the Unknown. The greatest of all human gifts is the imagination. It is the function behind all, and cannot be interpreted by logic alone .This is not based in an opinion, it is based in my own experience.”—Rick Paris —“Curt I think I can see/agree a little with Rick. By the very nature of biology, you will always have a body of diversity, not just in capacity, but also concerns. The big fallacy is mistaking diversity for equality and/or dismissability. There will always be a need for more peasants than kings… This doesn’t mean that worker bees should rule the give (all you get is drones if such happens)… At the same time, if the king doesn’t address with reciprocity the needs of the peasants, you leave a tinder wound and a jealous rage ready to eat the rich and a cultural cancer that no longer gives a shit. Homogeny is the cultural cream that will come to the surface given time and peace (consistent enforced reciprocity).”—Anne Summers

    This is a long standing debate, and it’s a matter of grammatical deficiency in our language, so we must state our meaning operationally to avoid sophistry. ONE Does existence persist independent of our perception? Yes. Does the universe demonstrate regularities independent of our perception? Yes. Do we define order as I did above as the intersection of periodicity and scale of resolution? Or do we define order as the regularities what we might potentially identify at various periodicities and scales? Or do we define order as dependent upon those periodicities and scales we can measure and reduce to analogy to experience? Or do we define order as dependent upon the periodicity and scale open to our perception at human scale? Or do we define order as those permutations of paradigms – networks of relations – that vary between humans despite relative invariance of human perception at human scale – such as the asian perception of the world as continuous motion(coherent world) or the european perception of the world as discreet objects (mechanistic world). TWO As for paradigms, this depends upon whether it is possible, when specifying both theory(search criteria), operations (measurement criteria) and limits (full accounting) whether we maintain progress toward the most parsimonious description or not. So, given human perception, human system of measurements, and human chosen time scale, when stating a theory, measurement, and limit, we appear to have successfully – at least in the ancient and modern worlds – slowly evolved greater precision and parsimony – in math, logic, and the sciences at least. And this is why it’s not clear than any of Aristotle, Newton, or Einstein are false at their levels of resolution. Instead it’s fairly obvious that we have just been increasing the precision of the general theory we call description of the regularities observable directly or instrumental in the universe. So if one’s definition is IDEAL then yes, theories are frequently falsified. But if one’s definition is testimonial then it certainly appears that we are continuously increasing precision and that the number of false theories is rapidly decreasing. So, when you attempt to refute my definition, description, and proposition which definition of order are you using?

  • Do Paradigms Really Falsify? What Does Order Mean? Operationalism in Action

    Feb 12, 2020, 2:01 PM [B]etter way of saying it: There is one most parsimonous paradigm (We call it science. Now I call it ‘P-grammar’). There is no value in false paradigms. There is only value in different attempts to solve a problem within the most parsimonious paradigm. (Note: my position is that language is a system of measurement, and the p-grammars identify the paradigm, and that operationalism constitutions the universal grammar. That would mean the universe is always reducible to classical description.)

    —“All paradigms are eventually false. :)”—Rick Paris

    That’s demonstrably false. Instead, we increasingly identify limits that cause us to increase the parsimony of our theories. All scientific paradigms appear increase in parsimony. Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein all evolve to greater precision. Take Humors (disease) and Phlogiston theory (chemistry), Einstein’s static universe(cosmology), or the expanding earth (plate tectonics). They were false but they were progress in the right direction. Conversely there are three categories that always fail to increase in parsimony: 1) Magic -> Pseudoscience (action-physical) 2) Idealism -> Philosophy (verbal-rational) 3) Occult -> Theology (emotional-intuitionistic) So we have deflationary grammars of Law, Science, Logic, and Mathematics that all increase in parsimony. And we have inflationary grammars of magic(physical), idealism(verbal), and the occult(emotional) that fail all tests of parsimony. Of course we also have the outright deceits too.

    —“It is not false. The Universe is expanding, in that what is outside the current momentary paradigm is defined as the Unknown. There is always greater amounts of the Unknown shifting our perceived facts of what is known, as the Unknown is always greater < than the known. So,”No man steps into the same river twice.” is a metaphor for all physical experience. Paradigms are currently, and simply limited and only limited by belief. All paradigms are fictitious mental constructs. Attempting to measure the illogical, is useless and limited the human potential. Logic is very tedious and limits the strongest aspects of the human mind. Only the imagination (what is common sense) is the part of us that can penetrate the very fabric of the Unknown. The greatest of all human gifts is the imagination. It is the function behind all, and cannot be interpreted by logic alone .This is not based in an opinion, it is based in my own experience.”—Rick Paris —“Curt I think I can see/agree a little with Rick. By the very nature of biology, you will always have a body of diversity, not just in capacity, but also concerns. The big fallacy is mistaking diversity for equality and/or dismissability. There will always be a need for more peasants than kings… This doesn’t mean that worker bees should rule the give (all you get is drones if such happens)… At the same time, if the king doesn’t address with reciprocity the needs of the peasants, you leave a tinder wound and a jealous rage ready to eat the rich and a cultural cancer that no longer gives a shit. Homogeny is the cultural cream that will come to the surface given time and peace (consistent enforced reciprocity).”—Anne Summers

    This is a long standing debate, and it’s a matter of grammatical deficiency in our language, so we must state our meaning operationally to avoid sophistry. ONE Does existence persist independent of our perception? Yes. Does the universe demonstrate regularities independent of our perception? Yes. Do we define order as I did above as the intersection of periodicity and scale of resolution? Or do we define order as the regularities what we might potentially identify at various periodicities and scales? Or do we define order as dependent upon those periodicities and scales we can measure and reduce to analogy to experience? Or do we define order as dependent upon the periodicity and scale open to our perception at human scale? Or do we define order as those permutations of paradigms – networks of relations – that vary between humans despite relative invariance of human perception at human scale – such as the asian perception of the world as continuous motion(coherent world) or the european perception of the world as discreet objects (mechanistic world). TWO As for paradigms, this depends upon whether it is possible, when specifying both theory(search criteria), operations (measurement criteria) and limits (full accounting) whether we maintain progress toward the most parsimonious description or not. So, given human perception, human system of measurements, and human chosen time scale, when stating a theory, measurement, and limit, we appear to have successfully – at least in the ancient and modern worlds – slowly evolved greater precision and parsimony – in math, logic, and the sciences at least. And this is why it’s not clear than any of Aristotle, Newton, or Einstein are false at their levels of resolution. Instead it’s fairly obvious that we have just been increasing the precision of the general theory we call description of the regularities observable directly or instrumental in the universe. So if one’s definition is IDEAL then yes, theories are frequently falsified. But if one’s definition is testimonial then it certainly appears that we are continuously increasing precision and that the number of false theories is rapidly decreasing. So, when you attempt to refute my definition, description, and proposition which definition of order are you using?

  • The Presumptions in Discourse and Argument in The Positiva and Negativa Traditions

    (CORE) Feb 12, 2020, 9:16 PM [I] would rather let this conversation go forward without my interjection to let the team demonstrate their skills but to save time 0) I use falsification. Falsification in science evolved from falsification by contest (competition, adversarial) in European law. And falsification by adversarial competition in law is our oldest continuous political tradition after sovereignty. 1) I do not presume people have agency, or that they have other than the minimum consciousness and self-reflection and self-regulation to engage in negotiation deception, parasitism, and predation to minimize the costs of obtaining wants and needs by productive voluntary exchange (people only demonstrate the minimum morality necessary to act in their interests.) 2) I do not presume that people seek truth but that people seek to justify priors, to lie, or sow social constructions for manipulation in pursuit of a discount, to engage in fraud, or to engage, or to conspire. 3) I do not presume when I don’t know the answer – I say something from the spectrum “We don’t know, I don’t know yet”, or “as far as I know”, or “we only know x so far”, or” we only know x so far and these possibilities are consistent with what we know so far”, or “as far as I know that’s false”, or “that can’t be true” – as that is the only truthful testimony I can give. 4) The history of all thought consists of the history of falsification of all causal claims other than realism naturalism under operationalism 5) All alternatives, all knowledge claims that are consistent with failure of all alternatives to realism, naturalism, under operationalism, must depend on some incentive other than “we don’t know yet, but all causality will depend upon realism, naturalization under operationalism”. 6) While we can testify to causes of realism naturalism operationalism and empiricism including subjective testing of incentives (rational choice), we cannot possibly testify to any claim that is not dependent upon realism, naturalism, under operationalism, because we cannot claim to have that knowledge, 7) If we can identify incentive, meaning, means motive and opportunity, for giving false testimony, by claiming the untestifiable then there is nothing else to determine – the person is lying. 8) In other words, theology and philosophy, negotiation and chit chat (exchange of signals of safety) seek opportunity for agreement or consent by means motive and opportunity, while, mathematics, logic, science, and law seek opportunity for falsification or decidability in dispute resolution by means motive and opportunity. In other words, if you can’t testify to a claim you’re starting out informing, negotiating, persuading, threatening by lying. Now, in a public forum at distance without direct physical contact I can’t engage in physical punishment for lying. But as a European man, defending the informational commons, I do the best I can in prose.

  • The Presumptions in Discourse and Argument in The Positiva and Negativa Traditions

    (CORE) Feb 12, 2020, 9:16 PM [I] would rather let this conversation go forward without my interjection to let the team demonstrate their skills but to save time 0) I use falsification. Falsification in science evolved from falsification by contest (competition, adversarial) in European law. And falsification by adversarial competition in law is our oldest continuous political tradition after sovereignty. 1) I do not presume people have agency, or that they have other than the minimum consciousness and self-reflection and self-regulation to engage in negotiation deception, parasitism, and predation to minimize the costs of obtaining wants and needs by productive voluntary exchange (people only demonstrate the minimum morality necessary to act in their interests.) 2) I do not presume that people seek truth but that people seek to justify priors, to lie, or sow social constructions for manipulation in pursuit of a discount, to engage in fraud, or to engage, or to conspire. 3) I do not presume when I don’t know the answer – I say something from the spectrum “We don’t know, I don’t know yet”, or “as far as I know”, or “we only know x so far”, or” we only know x so far and these possibilities are consistent with what we know so far”, or “as far as I know that’s false”, or “that can’t be true” – as that is the only truthful testimony I can give. 4) The history of all thought consists of the history of falsification of all causal claims other than realism naturalism under operationalism 5) All alternatives, all knowledge claims that are consistent with failure of all alternatives to realism, naturalism, under operationalism, must depend on some incentive other than “we don’t know yet, but all causality will depend upon realism, naturalization under operationalism”. 6) While we can testify to causes of realism naturalism operationalism and empiricism including subjective testing of incentives (rational choice), we cannot possibly testify to any claim that is not dependent upon realism, naturalism, under operationalism, because we cannot claim to have that knowledge, 7) If we can identify incentive, meaning, means motive and opportunity, for giving false testimony, by claiming the untestifiable then there is nothing else to determine – the person is lying. 8) In other words, theology and philosophy, negotiation and chit chat (exchange of signals of safety) seek opportunity for agreement or consent by means motive and opportunity, while, mathematics, logic, science, and law seek opportunity for falsification or decidability in dispute resolution by means motive and opportunity. In other words, if you can’t testify to a claim you’re starting out informing, negotiating, persuading, threatening by lying. Now, in a public forum at distance without direct physical contact I can’t engage in physical punishment for lying. But as a European man, defending the informational commons, I do the best I can in prose.

  • IS PROPERTARIANISM A COMPLETION OF THE HEGELIAN PROJECT? by Ryan Drummond I ofte

    IS PROPERTARIANISM A COMPLETION OF THE HEGELIAN PROJECT?

    by Ryan Drummond

    I often see P as a…completion, almost, of Hegel’s work, without the room for logical error (and the dirty path to Marxism opening as a result). His model, as you’ll see, touches on many truths. Only it is nowhere near as advanced as P, grammatically or scientifically.

    Basically, Hegel made an effort to come to what might be considered a “total” understanding of philosophy and existence – much like yourself. Only he wrote using all resources available to him in the late 1700’s/early 1800’s.

    So a lot of his understandings are premature, not scientifically accurate, and lie in the realm of honest speculation etc.

    He had the concept that through logic, nature and human consciousness, God could be considered real but not definable. That we could know of it, but not know It. So he called God, or the universal absolute, “The Idea”.

    This “Idea”, he said, could be realised through dialectic…and as dialectic occurs both in the natural realm and within the human psyche, it would be our inevitable path to eventually reach it.

    This is where the problems come in – because he wrote of dialectic in such wishy-washy prose, and used language that hardly anyone could decipher accurately enough to take consistent meaning from, there were basically two schools born from his ideas, both offering an “Idea” that could be seemingly supported by varying ‘interpretations’ of his work, whereby an ideal could be theoretically reached.

    One path was through what we would now call Marxism, I suppose, where equality reigns supreme…dysgenia through eugenic ideals (The false, yet morally appeasing way at odds with natural law but not at odds with human consciousness).

    During Hegel’s time advocates of this kind of philosophy, later to be characterised by Marx, were known as young Hegelians. It was another example of the young generation wanting to usurp the old guard.

    The other path, to me at least, appears to be very much like P – Eugenia through eugenic ideals (the true, yet sometimes morally disturbing way – not at odds with natural law, but often found to be at odds with human consciousness and what we see, at our earthly level, to be right or wrong).

    Advocates of this school were the ‘gammon’ of the day, so to speak: Old Hegelians.

    So from Hegelian philosophy we ended up with the two behemoths we see at war today, really – Marxism/The Left/Dysgenia proper, and it’s nemesis Fascism/The Right/Eugenia proper.

    Had he written his philosophy as concisely as P, I don’t believe that there would have been room for Marxism to ever exist within it’s bounds, and gain a foothold in the minds of the population.

    P is ‘essentially’ Old Hegelianism + Accurate terminology + Scientific Justification + So much more.

    Had he done the job he set out to do properly (I believe he always intended his work to be interpreted the Right way, so to speak), we wouldn’t have found ourselves in the mess we are in today.

    Your work basically completes his initial goal, only doesn’t use wishy-washy, unknowable language, but language of almost mathematical precision and meaning.

    You finish the job he started. You’ve created the total philosophy I believe he envisaged in some way.

    But creating it and applying it are two different things. Especially from the position we are in now. He often wrote of the French Revolution that humanity had taken a bright dawn and turned it into a dusk. If he witnessed a dusk, then we must exist in the early hours of the morning. It’s cold and dark.

    But if we can overcome the hurdles in front of us, we will push humanity to Godhood. We will realise The Idea. We can beat the red queen, or get so damn close to it we can be proud of our efforts.

    I hope that clarifies a little where I get the connections to Hegelian philosophy from.

    That, and he was addicted to using trinities to explain everything. You do the same thing, really, through P, only do it all more accurately.

    If Old Hegelian philosophy was the child, P is the man it could be considered to grow up to become.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-13 15:42:00 UTC

  • Is Propertarianism a Completion of the Hegelian Project?

    Feb 13, 2020, 3:42 PM IS PROPERTARIANISM A COMPLETION OF THE HEGELIAN PROJECT? by Ryan Drummond [I] often see P as a…completion, almost, of Hegel’s work, without the room for logical error (and the dirty path to Marxism opening as a result). His model, as you’ll see, touches on many truths. Only it is nowhere near as advanced as P, grammatically or scientifically. Basically, Hegel made an effort to come to what might be considered a “total” understanding of philosophy and existence – much like yourself. Only he wrote using all resources available to him in the late 1700’s/early 1800’s. So a lot of his understandings are premature, not scientifically accurate, and lie in the realm of honest speculation etc. He had the concept that through logic, nature and human consciousness, God could be considered real but not definable. That we could know of it, but not know It. So he called God, or the universal absolute, “The Idea”. This “Idea”, he said, could be realised through dialectic…and as dialectic occurs both in the natural realm and within the human psyche, it would be our inevitable path to eventually reach it. This is where the problems come in – because he wrote of dialectic in such wishy-washy prose, and used language that hardly anyone could decipher accurately enough to take consistent meaning from, there were basically two schools born from his ideas, both offering an “Idea” that could be seemingly supported by varying ‘interpretations’ of his work, whereby an ideal could be theoretically reached. One path was through what we would now call Marxism, I suppose, where equality reigns supreme…dysgenia through eugenic ideals (The false, yet morally appeasing way at odds with natural law but not at odds with human consciousness). During Hegel’s time advocates of this kind of philosophy, later to be characterised by Marx, were known as young Hegelians. It was another example of the young generation wanting to usurp the old guard. The other path, to me at least, appears to be very much like P – Eugenia through eugenic ideals (the true, yet sometimes morally disturbing way – not at odds with natural law, but often found to be at odds with human consciousness and what we see, at our earthly level, to be right or wrong). Advocates of this school were the ‘gammon’ of the day, so to speak: Old Hegelians. So from Hegelian philosophy we ended up with the two behemoths we see at war today, really – Marxism/The Left/Dysgenia proper, and it’s nemesis Fascism/The Right/Eugenia proper. Had he written his philosophy as concisely as P, I don’t believe that there would have been room for Marxism to ever exist within it’s bounds, and gain a foothold in the minds of the population. P is ‘essentially’ Old Hegelianism + Accurate terminology + Scientific Justification + So much more. Had he done the job he set out to do properly (I believe he always intended his work to be interpreted the Right way, so to speak), we wouldn’t have found ourselves in the mess we are in today. Your work basically completes his initial goal, only doesn’t use wishy-washy, unknowable language, but language of almost mathematical precision and meaning. You finish the job he started. You’ve created the total philosophy I believe he envisaged in some way. But creating it and applying it are two different things. Especially from the position we are in now. He often wrote of the French Revolution that humanity had taken a bright dawn and turned it into a dusk. If he witnessed a dusk, then we must exist in the early hours of the morning. It’s cold and dark. But if we can overcome the hurdles in front of us, we will push humanity to Godhood. We will realise The Idea. We can beat the red queen, or get so damn close to it we can be proud of our efforts. I hope that clarifies a little where I get the connections to Hegelian philosophy from. That, and he was addicted to using trinities to explain everything. You do the same thing, really, through P, only do it all more accurately. If Old Hegelian philosophy was the child, P is the man it could be considered to grow up to become.

  • Is Propertarianism a Completion of the Hegelian Project?

    Feb 13, 2020, 3:42 PM IS PROPERTARIANISM A COMPLETION OF THE HEGELIAN PROJECT? by Ryan Drummond [I] often see P as a…completion, almost, of Hegel’s work, without the room for logical error (and the dirty path to Marxism opening as a result). His model, as you’ll see, touches on many truths. Only it is nowhere near as advanced as P, grammatically or scientifically. Basically, Hegel made an effort to come to what might be considered a “total” understanding of philosophy and existence – much like yourself. Only he wrote using all resources available to him in the late 1700’s/early 1800’s. So a lot of his understandings are premature, not scientifically accurate, and lie in the realm of honest speculation etc. He had the concept that through logic, nature and human consciousness, God could be considered real but not definable. That we could know of it, but not know It. So he called God, or the universal absolute, “The Idea”. This “Idea”, he said, could be realised through dialectic…and as dialectic occurs both in the natural realm and within the human psyche, it would be our inevitable path to eventually reach it. This is where the problems come in – because he wrote of dialectic in such wishy-washy prose, and used language that hardly anyone could decipher accurately enough to take consistent meaning from, there were basically two schools born from his ideas, both offering an “Idea” that could be seemingly supported by varying ‘interpretations’ of his work, whereby an ideal could be theoretically reached. One path was through what we would now call Marxism, I suppose, where equality reigns supreme…dysgenia through eugenic ideals (The false, yet morally appeasing way at odds with natural law but not at odds with human consciousness). During Hegel’s time advocates of this kind of philosophy, later to be characterised by Marx, were known as young Hegelians. It was another example of the young generation wanting to usurp the old guard. The other path, to me at least, appears to be very much like P – Eugenia through eugenic ideals (the true, yet sometimes morally disturbing way – not at odds with natural law, but often found to be at odds with human consciousness and what we see, at our earthly level, to be right or wrong). Advocates of this school were the ‘gammon’ of the day, so to speak: Old Hegelians. So from Hegelian philosophy we ended up with the two behemoths we see at war today, really – Marxism/The Left/Dysgenia proper, and it’s nemesis Fascism/The Right/Eugenia proper. Had he written his philosophy as concisely as P, I don’t believe that there would have been room for Marxism to ever exist within it’s bounds, and gain a foothold in the minds of the population. P is ‘essentially’ Old Hegelianism + Accurate terminology + Scientific Justification + So much more. Had he done the job he set out to do properly (I believe he always intended his work to be interpreted the Right way, so to speak), we wouldn’t have found ourselves in the mess we are in today. Your work basically completes his initial goal, only doesn’t use wishy-washy, unknowable language, but language of almost mathematical precision and meaning. You finish the job he started. You’ve created the total philosophy I believe he envisaged in some way. But creating it and applying it are two different things. Especially from the position we are in now. He often wrote of the French Revolution that humanity had taken a bright dawn and turned it into a dusk. If he witnessed a dusk, then we must exist in the early hours of the morning. It’s cold and dark. But if we can overcome the hurdles in front of us, we will push humanity to Godhood. We will realise The Idea. We can beat the red queen, or get so damn close to it we can be proud of our efforts. I hope that clarifies a little where I get the connections to Hegelian philosophy from. That, and he was addicted to using trinities to explain everything. You do the same thing, really, through P, only do it all more accurately. If Old Hegelian philosophy was the child, P is the man it could be considered to grow up to become.