SERIES: MODELS OF DECIDABILITY
(very important)(advanced)
Michael Andrade teased me the other day for posting so many series, often without resolution. Why?
Each series is an attempt at creating a proof. An attempt to create a set, series, sequence, spectrum, that increases the precision of every definition by its membership in that spectrum. I try to include as many terms as I can, and when something doesn’t fit, I add more dimensions. I record each ‘failed proof’, and some of them I’ve tried dozens of times – each time trying to take it to further clarity and precision.
Eventually I end up with all terms defined on different spectra, and each spectra represents a causal axis – a universal law of man. It is from the identification of these axis that I test each other axis, and together develop an internally consistent and externally correspondent logical description of the laws that govern men’s impulses, thoughts, and actions.
And while definitions are important for clear argument, and definitions in series (linear or otherwise) are the best we can achieve, that is not my end objective.
Just as reality consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, mathematics consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, our methods of argument consist of dimensions and eventually result in pure relations. Just as mathematics consists of very simple operations, programming consists of very simple operations, chemistry consists of a very simple set of operations, the ‘theory of everything’ must eventually consist of very simple (deterministic) operations, also… in practice, the law of perfect reciprocity must also consist of a simple set of operations (we know that already from experience), and most importantly *argument* must consist of a very simple set of operations (it does), and a limited number of *dimensions* (it does).
Moreover, just as languages vary from the primitive and high context (Chinese), to the advanced and low context (English/German), Arguments vary from universal context (human experiences), to high context (normative), to low context(natural law), to minimum-context’ (science, or ‘truthful’).
And so just as we have sought the ‘law of chemistry’, and the law of nature (cooperation), we can seek the ‘law of sentience’. The law or argument. The law of communication. And with that law we can create arguments ever closer, and ideas ever closer, to correspondence with reality. And it is from correspondence with reality that we gain knowledge of reality – and from that knowledge, dominion over reality.
SERIES: ARGUMENTS (COMMUNICATION)
==========================
IMAGINARY (we should do )
Occult Literature (Separatist Theology)(separate)(intuition – justify)
Supernatural Literature (Theology)(organize organize by authority)(reason)
Moral Literature (Philosophy)(organize by ideal)(rationalism)
Literature (Allegory)(envision)
DESCRIPTIVE (we have done)
History (Analogy)(advise) (note: non-econ history is literature)
Economics (Record) (evidence of cooperation)(advise)
Law (Record)(evidence of conflict)
Natural Law (Logic)(decide)
Science (Truth )(learn)
JUSTIFICATIONARY (we justify )
Ratio-empirical-operational
Ratio-Empirical
Rational
Reasonable
Moral Normative
EXPERIENTIAL (we feel)
Sentimental
Expressive
