Ideology, Philosophy, Law, or Science?

Is This a Work of Ideology, Philosophy, Law, or Science?

Part of positioning this work requires ending Confusion between Science, Logic, Law, Philosophy, Theology, and Ideology. Logic says what must be, Science says what is, Law decides conflicts, Philosophy assists us in making choices – hopefully within the limits of law, science ,and logic. And Theology and Mythology provide us with wisdom that has survived over time in making those choices. And ideology is just a political philosophy that exludes the interests of competing philosophies.

So to answer that question we’ll need to disambiguate a few terms. Maybe more than a few:

  • Local Conditions: The geography, climate, resources, means of production, hetero or homogeneity of the population, number of competitors, differences in development or productivity vs competitors.
  • Group Strategy: A strategy of competitive survival given the local conditions, the relationship between the powerful(military) and the powerless (peasantry), and the order of institutions (military, religious, commercial) that evolved.
  • Morality: a set of habits, norms, traditions constituting informal, self-perpetuating institutions, that proscribe and prescribe behavior, to maintain Reciprocity and Proportionality within the Group Strategy under Local Conditions, thereby persisting cooperation, and preventing conflict, violence, retaliation cycles, and defection from the group.
  • Metaphysics: a set of unconscious presumptions (~axioms) upon which all existence and value judgments in a group, class, nation, civilization depend, that perpetuate, justify, and advocate a group strategy.
  • Mythology: a set of narratives for intergenerational transfer (transmission) of Morality, Metaphysics, Group Strategy, in local conditions.
  • Wisdom Literature: a set of essays opinions arguments for intergenerational transfer (transmission) of Morality, Metaphysics, Group Strategy, in local conditions.
  • Organized Religion and Unorganized Religion: A set of private and public rituals that provide mindfulness to assist in the tolerance for costs and benefits of the mythology, metaphysics, group strategy, and local conditions, given our genetic variations in neuroticism (stress, uncertainty, fear, anxiety, worry ).  In other words, religions are a simple means of compensating for increases in inequality in increasing divisions of labor. Religions with rituals provide mindfulness (cognitive, psychological, emotional, social stress reduction) by providing a universal system of behavioral weights and measures that insulate the individual from social and psychological effects (anxiety) of evolutionary pressures (competition, decline in perception of value to the group) given the alienation that occurs as populations increase, division of labor increases, and the psychological and social security of the individual decreases.). Unorganized religion develops organically without a formal institutional structure to govern it and extract revenues by it.  An organized religion develops deliberately using a formal institution and a means of extracting revenue to pay for it and its members. A ‘book’ can produce a formal institution just like science and contract law can produce a formal institution of specialists, because the book provides some notion of decidability at the cost of limited rotation (adaptation, evolution).
  • Philosophy: The use of reason to produce a system of decidability, by producing a system of measurement, thereby allowing us to systematically organizing our thoughts, to produce understanding, advice, or decisions – of any scope, from a single topic, subject, condition, to all of human experience.
    • Natural philosophy: the empirical evidence of the history of the development of Natural Philosophy refers to what we consider the science of ‘what is’ rather than ‘what may be good or preferable’.
    • Logic (informal): The use of Logics by human reason refer to the hierarchy of tools (methods) used to construct philosophical arguments, by testing the coherence, correspondence, consistency, inconsistency, and contradiction between sets of states consisting of methods and properties testable by human senses and perception.
    • Philosophy (Proper): We can identify and categorize a set of functions that philosophers have fulfilled throughout history.
      • Disambiguation: Think Socrates. What are we taking for granted? Let’s disambiguate these terms and ideas that we use, and discover if we understand them or not, and if what we think of them is true or not.
      • Investigation: Think Democritus and Aristotle: theorizing how man, society, politics, civilizations, the world, and the universe functions, to see if we can discover general rules.
      • Integration: The present and long term
      • Proposition (Theorizing):
      • Reformation (Recommending): that the middle and upper-middle classes that lack political power produce thought leadership that makes a rational and moral appeal to a group with military, economic, political, social, familial, or religious power for the purpose of suggesting (recommending, demanding) change by one or more of those formal(State, religion, military), semi-formal(marriage), or informal(norms) institutions. In this sense, philosophy recommends what is “preferable, wise, or good”.
      • Bridging: Providing bridge between theology and politics, that renders religion (at least non-scriptural religion) debatable and modifiable.
      • The Problems of Philosophy: (a) Incommensurability due to arbitrary axioms rather than laws of nature produces internal consistency without external dependency or correspondence, especially dependency on costs, incentives for people in the competitive sexual, social, economic, political, strategic marketplaces. (b) self-serving bias. Classes exist and will always exist, and there is nothing that can be done about it as long as there is an asymmetry between the biological capability of some segment of the population and the means of cooperation and production available to that population in competition with the rest of regional or world populations. As such all philosophy tends to favor a class interest. And we sell class philosophies in order to resist, advance, obtain, or hold power, when power is the only means to circumvent the dependence on self-determination by self-determined means in the present context.
      • Note: We categorize western wisdom literature as philosophy. Chinese wisdom literature is just wisdom literature using ‘reasonableness’. Indian wisdom literature seems to have hit a dead-end very early after the first century and while it was as promising then as the Greek, I can’t comment on it today. Semitic wisdom literature might have emerged in response to the Islamic import of European, Indian, and Egyptian knowledge, but fell to the fundamentalist resurgence among the Arabs in the tenth century. So out of habit, we use the terms philosophy, law, logic, and science to refer to the relative equivalent in each civilization. However, no only Europeans practiced science, logic, philosophy, and law as we understand it: as testimony to that which is observable, where observable consists of both physical (external), and logical(internal) observations.
    • Secular Theology(sedating emotional): Applies largely to the German enlightenment and present continental philosophers who have sought to produce a secular rational alternative to scriptural certainty. This includes Kant and Hegel through the more recent Heidegger.
    • Pseudoscience (physical): Applies largely to the German-Ashkenazi  Jewish counter-enlightenment that sought to repeat the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic counter-revolution against the West beginning with Marx, Freud, Boaz, Cantor, Gramsci, through the present.
    • Sophistry (verbal): Applies largely to the French (Rousseu) “enlightenment,  counter-revolution against anglo empiricism, and the French-Ashkenazi Jewish counter-enlightenment we call postmodernism, of Derrida, Foucault et al.
    • Ideology (reactive emotional): Ideology refers to the use of emotion to agitate activism under democratic institutions, in order to increase the priority of one set of goals over another regardless of their truth, reciprocity, utility, or consequence. Applies to the Jewish MarxistGerman and Italian Fascist, American PC-Woke, American Anti-Western-Anti-Witness movements.
    • Critique: Applies to the combination of denial, undermining, propaganda, ideology, sophistry, pseudoscience, and secular theology to undermine formal, semi-formal, and informal institutions of cultural and informational production rather than offering a competing and equally criticizable solution.
  • Law (Tradition, Legislation, Regulation, Command): the logic of decidability within a group society or polity, that is enforced by the insurance of enforcement, by the members of the familial, social and (or) political institutions. “Laws must be insured and require an insurer, or insurers, or they are not laws, but habits, norms, and traditions.” However, there are at least four theories of Law:
    • Natural Law (Scientific Law): The catalog of the discovery of violations of the natural demand for self-determination by self-determined means, sovereignty in demonstrated interests, and reciprocity in action, and reciprocal insurance of all of the above.
    • Positive Law (Man-Made Law):
      • Rights law: Any command that enforces arbitrarily declared rights, produced by any political process capable of enforcing it.
      • Procedure Law: Any command issued by any political process capable of enforcing it.
      • Command Law: any command issued by any authority capable of enforcing it.
  • Engineering: The applied science of organizing forces, materials, and/or behaviors to produce evidentiary ends. Engineering includes possibilities, costs, and incentives. More importantly, Philosophy, Politics, Law, and Science most often do not.
  • Science: Science consists of the discipline of producing increasingly parsimonious testimony that iteratively (gradually) is reducible to a formal operational logic at each stage of the complexity of stable relations. We think of this hierarchy as physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, and the rest of the fields. But just to add confusion, in the literature we refer to four sciences:
    • Formal Sciences: The Logics: the hierarchies of vocabulary, grammar, and logic.
    • Physical Sciences: Those systems of deterministic operations.
    • Behavioral Sciences: Those systems of semi-deterministic operations
    • Applied Sciences: ( … )
    • Evolutionary Sciences: The outcome of physical and behavioral operations.
  • Logic (Verbal, Set Logic): linguistic expression consisting of vocabulary(references), operations (actions), grammar, syntax, logic, and paradigm for use as a system of measurement providing us with tests of consistency correspondence, coherence, completeness between properties, and methods of instances and sets.
  • Mathematics (Positional Logic): A linguistic logic of reference-independent, scale-independent, positional names. It is the most simple paradigm, logic, grammar, and vocabulary possible for testing constant-relations because numbers (positional names) possess only one property: position, which serves as a single, unique, unambiguous, non-deflatable, non-conflatable, non-inflatable, constant relation. And as such is the optimum system of measurement for constant relations.
    Note: the frailty of mathematics is also its limitation in that not all computable results are expressible in mathematical descriptions. (See Mathematical Reducibility).
  • Human Logical Facility: the direction of our auto-association, attention, recursion, permutation, and wayfinding (reason), to the tests of consistency, correspondence, coherence, completeness.
  • Human Sense, Perception, and Memory: biological instrumentation (nerves, neurons) that together organize various sensations into networks of objects, environments, backgrounds, places, locations, episodes, and predictions by competition for consistency, correspondence, and coherence, over time.

Then, as such:

  • Law decides matters of disputes
    • Science produces testimony of relations
    • Logic tests our claims using relations
    • Mathematics measures constant relations
  • Philosophy suggests(argues) goods, preferences, choices
    • Literature educates (Suggests)
    • History educates (suggests)
  • Theology claims(demands) obedience (power) via supernatural(fictitious) authority
    • Mythology educates (Indoctrinates)
  • Ideology advocates (excites, offends) for Power (regardless of merit)
    • Propaganda, Disinformation, and Deceit (Deceives)

Then as such:

  • If any truth claim is inconsistent across the spectrum of Science, Logic, Morality, Law, and Evolutionary Consequence: then it is not scientific, logical, moral, lawful, or ‘good’. The present disconnect between moral and lawful is delegitimizing our governments. It’s easily fixed and you’d be surprised how frequently right your intuitions are. And we’ll explain why.
  • If, as we will demonstrate, decidability means “objectively, logically consistent, operationally possible, and empirically evident, and survivably persistent, regardless of subjective intuition or preference” then within any group, given any group strategy, our morality, our metaphysics, our means of persuasion, our mythology, our religion, our institutions, and our laws may differ. But between people of different groups, the law is universally applicable and universally decidable. So all conflicts within and across groups are decidable, and the science and logic of morality is absolute, not relative. Groups just evolve moral, amoral, and immoral norms, traditions, institutions, and laws by accident of circumstance, ignorance, error, presumption, and incompetence – especially the incompetence of the well-meaning. This is why international law like international science and mathematics slowly approaches consistency and coherence with science, logic, and reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.
  • While science, logic, and law may decide the true and reciprocal, or false and irreciprocal, this does not say anything about individual or group choice, preference or good within the true and reciprocal and positively consequential, and outside of the false and irreciprocal and negatively consequential. Only philosophy may decide the preferable, and only groups in an agreement may decide the good.

Then, in answer to the question of “Is this ideology, philosophy, science, logic, or law?

  • This work is a science, operational logic, and law for the purpose of suppression, prohibition, and if necessary the punishment of, critique, ideology, sophistry, pseudoscience, secular theology, theology, and religion that is a violation of science, logic, morality, and the laws of man, nature, and nature’s god, thereby limiting political discourse to the true and moral and therefore scientific, logical, lawful, and free of crimes against the individual, group, nation, civilization, race, and mankind.
  • The foundation of this work is a formal, operational, logic of testimony by which we can falsify (test) any proposition within and across all human knowledge (disciplines). It might seem that such a thing is impossible, but thankfully it’s not – it was just very difficult to discover, capture, and produce. And we will explain why it was hard to do so later on in our journey.
  • Everything else in this work evolves out of that methodology. Most of this work teaches, applies, and explains human experience, behavior, and knowledge using this methodology.

And, if the means of decidability in logic (verbal), science (observable), operationalism (sequence of actions), and law (conflict) is consistent, and the scope of decidability in logic, science, operationalism, differ, but logic, science, and operationalism are included in the decidability of law:

  • Then this work is reducible to a LawComplete, Universal, Decidability.

If you can follow that chain of reasoning, then you’ll be able to follow most of the reasoning in this work. Because that’s a simple example of using it: disambiguation, deflation, and operationalization, by serialization into first principles (causes), that eliminate the opportunity for exploitation of ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, deceit, fraud, and denial, by prevention of distraction, suggestion, conflation, inflation, fabricating (“fictioning”), fictionalism(sophistry-idealism, pseudoscience-magic, theology-occult), and deceit, producing an operational logic of first principles from the first principle of the universe: entropy.

A Prophet, Philosopher, Lawgiver, Logician, Scientist?

Let’s frame the question differently.

We are what we do. I am, what I do – as are all of us. And in the past, what I do was called philosophy because it consists of integrating the findings of the sciences into present understanding and reorganizing present understanding to conform to or take advantage of that increase in knowledge. And then to provie one or more sets of options and opportunities that we may take advantage of, including old beliefs, habits, and institutions we might abandon, given this new understanding. This is and this remains, the only function of a philosopher that I know of. And I don’t see an end to this need – ever. I see only the need to suppress, prohibit, and punish those who sell frauds and deceits under the pretext of such insight.

As such I’m acting as a Philosopher.

The methodology of this project consisted of investigation, disambiguation, operationalization, thereby identifying first principles (causality), general rules (laws of nature) and producing measurements and testimony in every possible field of human inquiry, across all scales of human experience, in which there is any meaningful legal dispute.

As such I’m acting as a Scientist.

The end result of this investigation, disambiguation, operationalization, and testimony, as is the end result of any science, consists of a work of measurement using vocabulary, grammar, logic, and syntax, consisting of an operational logic of decidability across all human domains.

As such I’m acting as a Logician.

The end result of the vocabulary, grammar, logic, and science applied to law is the completion of the European, Germanic, Anglo, American development of a scientific foundation of law, a constitution embodying that scientific law, and rights, obligations, inalienations under that law, and system of government, and set of polities according to that law.

As such I’m acting as a Lawgiver.

The end result of the study of the evolution of man and comparative civilizations and their institutions and outcomes is a deterministic prediction of the possible futures of man and the limited time window we have to achieve certain ends.

As such I’m acting both a historian and as a foreteller of future events.

The long-term consequence of the vocabulary, grammar, logic, science, law, government, and policies is a demand for a reformation of religion that ‘non-false’ just like the science, logic, law, and all the rest of life under the Law would not be false.  One of the outcomes of this project was the ‘sciencing’ of Christianity and a path forward for reformation of at least the Catholic church to suit the new understanding of religion, polity, society, economics, and science.

So in that sense, I’m acting as a Theologian.

So given that I can and do claim that this science, logic, and law consists of the science, logic, and laws of the universe, and therefore of man, nature, and nature’s god, then I can and do claim that any ideology, philosophy, religion, or theology that is in conflict with these laws is false and a work of ignorance, error, bias, deceit, fraud or warfare.

So in this sense, at least in the abstract, I’m acting as a Prophet.

So which? Prophet, Theologian, Forteller(Futurist), Lawgiver, Logician, Scientist, Philosopher? Do these labels even mean anything relevant any longer? I don’t know. I’ve thought about it quite a lot and I’m still unsure.

But if science, logic, law, philosophy, theology, and group strategy are consistent, commensurable, correspondent, possible, and produce evolutionary survival, then every step of that spectrum is both truthful in expression, true in operation, true in prescription, and true in outcome, and as such these terms merely disambiguate degrees of precision in the spectrum of grammars we used to describe the one most parsimonious ‘true’ paradigm.

So, of those terms, if I had to choose one, I’d choose Lawgiver. But I assume the label philosopher will stick regardless of my wants or feelings.

Was this page helpful?

Leave a Reply

. . .