Theme: Measurement

ALL,

Here is why (a) it takes me so long (b) why I don’t ‘go deep’ (anchoring vs discovery), (c) and how I approach my work, and (d) the evolution of the goal.

If I look at the works of others who have tried to accomplish something of this scale, it appears to take on average ten years. Some of these people publish incrementally(marx), some in topics (smith and hume), and some of them publish all at once (kant). I conceived of the problem in 1992, wasn’t able to devote much time to it until 2001, but by 2006 understood what would be required to solve it. Starting in 2006 I was lucky enough to devote part time to working on it, so that by 2009, I understood propertarianism, the concepts i must cover and framework for doing so but not how to solve the problem of truthfulness in law. By 2012 I was able to work full time on it, and by 2014 I had the outline worked out for the whole work, and solve the problem of truthfulness. In 2015 the Nietzcheans pressured me into answering the problems of religion and aesthetics. And since 2012 my secondary objective has been to learn to speak increasingly clearly.

I’m working my way through each step of philosophy and social science.

metaphysics, psychology, epistemology, ethics, norms, politics, law, group evolutionary strategy, war, and aesthetics. This is a tremendous project, and honestly, it is not what I set out to do. But it is what I feel compelled to do now that I understand it.

I don’t go deep immediately on subjects because the work exists by others. I don’t feel the need to restate it. I leave it to others to do that. that’s a ‘teacher’ job not a ‘scientist’ job. And partly because I understand the problem of anchoring and overinvestment. So as a self-defense measure, I try move the entire framework together just as if I was working on an old master painting, from the underpainting through to the last tiny details.

I have to admit to another basic fear – that I have survived three serious illnesses and I am hopeful that if I produce the overall framework, that if something happens to me, followers can (like most followers do in all other fields) both expand then teach then distribute the ideas. Whereas if something happens to me and I touch on only a piece of it, then the principle theory – the Wilsonian synthesis – will not come into being.

If communicating in terms even marginally comprehensible to others wasn’t such an issue for me, and I could retreat into the conflation of continental philosophers, then I suppose it would be better if I did not work in public at all. But the truth is that the practice of communicating (teaching) what I am trying to convey is the tool I use to learn to simplify as best as I can, the transformation of collectivist coalescent moral thought, into collective, critical, scientific thought. So I work in public and I spend lots of time with people because it is hard work to find a way of bridging between totalitarian moral argument and libertarian scientific truth.

When I started out, my objective was to produce an amoral (scientific) language for the comparison and contrast of different political and group strategies. SO that I could give conservatives and ‘whacky’ libertarians a rational and scientific language. This is what i found in Locke, Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe: the reduction to property rights and voluntary exchange, an amoral language. But what I also found in them, was a middle class bourgeoise ethic that could not survive competition from those with superior political orders.

So I had to reform that method such that it applied to high trust orders (property in toto, and non-retaliation).

And once I understood this, then I wanted to know how to put it into law. And once I understood I must put it into law I understood I had to solve the problem of truth. And then I had to produce an argument defending it. And thus, a full framework that consolidated the philosophical, moral, legal, political, competitive, aesthetic, and physical.

This provides a full defense against any attack upon it.

Anyway, that’s why I do what I do.

Like it or not.