1 – We don’t know Game B. (We don’t care either – at least as the institute goes.) We function purely falsificationary (Judicial) frame: Remove falsehood, irreciprocity, devolutionary, and the choice of games is up to the population. Anything not false, irreciprocal, and devolutionary is therefore ether amoral or moral (good).
2 – Intrinsic to this question is that we function only as judges (the via-negativa). We do not function as priests, politicians, and public intellectuals (the via positiva). Yet the populatin desires the via positiva – what should we do? How do we make sense of it? This is why our organization views itself as unable to provide a via positiva message to the population. It’s antithetical for us to produce a via-positiva ‘plan b’ other than the institutions that make possible the broadest range of Plan B’s. Even if we can only assist in identifying those plan b’s that are false, irreciprocal, and devolutionary.
3 – All cooperation, all evolution all matter in the universe is unstable. Cooperative organizations are unstable because they are the most fungible – voluntary. That’s why cooperative organizations (life forms) are the most rapidly evolutionary at the cost of instability.
4 – But what I think Jordan might be missing, is that there are only three methods of human influence-coercion: I) seduction-rejection-ostracization, II) bribery-exchange-boycott, III) defense-disputeResolution-forcePunishment. And that there are only three sets of elites. And there are only three sets of institutions. (Religion-Education, Economy-Contract, State-force). And that each civilization specizlized in one of these institutions as it’s foundation and the second was weaker, and the third weakest or failed. As such what Jordan is interpreting as a tendency to go backward, or that there are fixed possibilities, is a misinterpretation, of my argument.
5 – My argument is only that these institutions will always exist, are the only categories of institutions that can exist, and that the only means of creating stability between these institutions is what we call ‘rule of law of natural law’: a market for the suppression of falsehood, irreciprocity, and devolution “regardless of rank.”
6 – We can in fact define (and have) a recipe for the production of governments that cover the trifunctional spectrum of possible institutional combinations. We can (and have) put those into a constitution. But the construction of strategic orders, political orders, social orders, commercial orders, family orders, and interpersonal orders.
7 – So we can ‘science’ psychology, demonstrated behavior, sociology, economy, polity, and group strategy sufficiently to decide whether falsehood, irreciprocity, and devolution are prohibited. But that does not prohibit the truthful reciprocal evolutionary organization of any society by any means.
8 – And societies do need different commons produced by all political orders, if for no other reason than demographic distribution of ability, demographic distribution of male-female intuition, and demographic distribution of rates of maturity.
9 – Our strategic need is to find a center or center left group capable of providing a via-positva plan B to sell. And to provide that plan b with legitimacy. Our present structural recommendation is to follow the science and produce a larger number of states who produce different local commons, while sharing defense – we call this a federation. And this federation is the only organizing means possible under such liberty to grant one another the sovereignty to produce those comomons suitable for the demographic distribution.
10 – We beleive we have the technological software built for the solution to the problem of the academy. At most it will require two more years of development to replace the academy. (“path to make money”)
11 – Sensemaking – meaning-making are pretty simple from our standpiont. Our progress this year has largely been intrying to simplify that sensemaking so that it’s accessible. We feel that we can get there this year, and produce the course content. Can we get that content down to 8th grade level? I don’t know. I think we can produce a set of posters and a few ‘poems or prayers, or oaths’ – some lines text that must be memorized so that yes it is possible to get it down below the 8th grade level.
12 – We focus (I focus) on fixing the irreciprocity in the legal and economic systems. And we could argue that most of our reforms are in the economy – restoring it to the benefit of the majority.
NOTES: I really don’t see where we have any disagreement with what I consider the center left except that we’re ‘rude’ because judicial truth is in fact ‘rude’. Seriously…. The problem is that because we’re ‘rude’ the ‘rude boys’ are attracted to us. And rude boys make better research subjects. In other words, what’s the underlying difference here other than customizing our language to serve disagreeable-systematizing vs agreeable-empathizing audiences.