Theme: Grammar

A LEGIT CRITICISM THAT IS AN UNREASONABLE CRITICISM

—“Instead of saying “propertarianism is a collection of ideas the most fundamental of which is… “ I wish she would just list the ideas in concise, fundamental forms of course including the new form of the scientific method. …. Historical reference is of course important for full understanding but you place more importance on how it fits in with respect to our existing modalities of thought and our history ….. If it’s a complete system you should be able to express it external to all context”— Bill Smith

It’s like asking aristotle to list aristotelianism in concise format. He was applying legal (juridical) reasoning rather than the traditional normative, moral or supernatural, to the world of knowledge in his time. I’m doing the same with two millennia of additional information to work with – particularly economics, physics, cognitive and computer science – aristotle was working within human scale, and in our age, we can work beyond human scale both micro and macro. So, how do you distill that down more so than “Aristotle developed reason, began the discipline of empiricism, and science and applied his method to all fields of inquiry”. Well I did the same thing.

Now if you want to see the outline of the set of ideas that came from that insight you can read it since it’s in summary form in the Overview. Or at least most of it is. And if you want to see it implemented you can see the state of the constitution (in continuous development). But it’s a LONG LIST of ideas, just as Aristotle in his era, or hobbes/locke/smith/hume in their era, or a list of a hundred thinkers in the industrial era.

It’s not that I can’t say it clearly. I just did in the video. It’s that the “…application of the completion of the scientific method to all fields of inquiry…” exposes many ideas.

So the “Overview” is (was really) my working list of the major ideas. (I do most of my work in the book now.)

I say them concisely all the time. But that does not mean you will understand them without some rather serious effort, any more than you will undrestand any other technical field conveying counter-intuitive information without serious effort. I mean, how many people don’t understand darwin’s theory today, or einstein’s. once understood they are quite simple. If described they don’t convey much at all.

Ideologies are simple. That’s their purpose.

Revolutions in thought are not simple because they touch everything.