Update On the IDL LGG

My quest for the IDL LGG continues, and I am yet working on the construction of its alphabet.  Since its symbols (letters) bear unique shapes (in some instances) I cannot simply “type them” to show my progress.

I shall here attempt to describe them instead, as clearly as I might.  Here is the brief list of symbols I have chosen so far:    the diamond, the “double diamond”; the 4 pronged star, 8-p star, the heart, the double heart; the “arc diamond” (whose 4 sides swing outward and then back inward to meet the next arc); the double “arc diamond”.  I also plan to allow ellipses (the shape of an orbit of a planet), though I am unsure of the exact manner of their use yet; and then, I now allow “the square.”

This list now includes symbols with arcs (curves), but only with those symbols that show symmetry, and/ or complementarity. some symbols will probably “double,” allowing one symbol (say, a diamond) to reside inside another (say, a square).  But this merits further reflection.

I am after all trying for the IDL alphabet.  Its most salient structural features should best represent the most salient features of the real world — you guessed it – symmetry, complementarity, reflexivity, systems, fields and the like.  These are the kinds of “representative portrayals” I am attempting.  Yet, I plan to “keep it simple” whenever possible.  The “heart” symbol is that found on the 52-deck of playing cards.

How is that for “easy enough”?

Ouijee Board symbols not included.  We cannot have letters that randomly levitate off the page.

I shall continue my list and my post here when convenient.

Challenging the Idea of Logical (and Mathematical) Necessity

In continuing my wisdom quest, I have discovered several problems, which I have been working on solvng for a long time now.  One of them concerns the question of how the world of dynamic processes (the real world) has come to be characterized by systems (“games” on my view) of logic and math, games that proceed on the assumption that their conclusions are NECESSARY, when the real world is filled with processes that depend upon prior conditions — are contingent (not necessary).

I have  concluded after a lengthy investigation that applying the idea of necessity (from the logic/ math games) to the real world (of contingency) is a false move, one with grave implications for social development all through human history.

The equal sign in math games, stands not merely for “equal values,” but it aims to portray “2 + 3” as equal to 5 NECESSARILY.  The equal sign has meant “necessarily equals.”   And this is not true.

Math games have limits, and sometimes “AWKWARD alternative answers, that do not make it into the textbooks. For instance, if you start with “1 to the 5th power = 1 to the 3rd power,” you can then subtract from boht sides of the equal sign, 1 to the 3rd power, which yields the AWKWARD answer that 1 to the 2d power = zero, or simply “1 = 0”

If this were true “2 + 3” could be equivalently construed as “3 + 4”, which means that 2 +3 = 7 (alternatively).  So the truth was (in the first place) that “2 +3” = 5 — BUT UNDER CERTAIN CONTEXTUAL CONDITIONS ONLY (or CONTINGENTLY).

What happens in the social world if we falsely apply “logical necessity” to the real, dynamic and contingent world?  We create artificial (social) forms of necessity.  Historically, these have taken the form of “social caste systems,” notions of “Legal necessity” that are erroneous, and economic valuations that are bogus.

I shall be exploring these here at this blog (at greater length) when convenient.

This blog post simply affirms that — since the game-context of logic and math games is rather limited, and the real-world-context of systems and fields run vastly more complex, it proves overbearingly simple to assume that one context is transferable to the other, THAT the conclusion of the one NECESSARily apply to the other.

This should be obvious. The logic we use should be developed (by virtual modeling on my view — the gods of software be praised) upon the integrity and synergy features of real systems.  More later.  Think on these things as you will be wiser than YODA, when 900 you are.

Transcendentals as the Source of Authority: A Third Option to the Traditional Question

The oldest question (okay one of the oldest) in your Poli Sci textbook asks whether authority comes “from above” — that is, from God or the gods, or some other transcendent source — or whether it comes from the bottom of the social hierarchy — that is, from the people of a civilization, “mankind,” or those of a nation, or from “citizens” broadly construed.

Many hours of debate have taken up time in arguing (at times heatedly) “from the top” — as with the U.S. Declaration of Independence, or from the bottom (as with our Constitution).

But what if a third possibility obtains, which we have yet to appreciate — that Immanuel Kant’s list of transcendentals was often mistaken, and quite incomplete?   What if it was supposed to include authority as a transcendental?

As far back as the Protestant Reformation, and farther, theorists have taken knowledge claims and authority to bear an interdependent relatonship.  “Epistemic rights” names a concept in the theory of knowledge that asks what warrants one to claim that his affirmations are “justified”??

Notions of warrant and justification in this field assume that some (claimants) have the right to claim that their views are either “true,” or else “proven,” or in some cases that other views have been “falsified” or “discredited.” And others, say “untested claims,” have no such rights (authority) attending them.

The old Greek word, Exousia, (lit. from the being), which means either “authority” or else “rights …”

more latet



The Myth of the “Hebrew Bible”

What if all of western thought was based upon a text that turned out to be one of the most entrenched and )long-standing mythologies in the world scholarship, both ecclesiastical and “secular?”  That is the proposal of this blog frame. The nature of my claim, shortened in a grossly oversimplified way, is called “The Non-existence of the Hebrew Bible.”  What does this mean?   I argue thus (and hold your horses since I have many qualifications to offer):

The famous, ancient  scrap, known as the “Silver Amulets,”  a priestly benediction from the book of Numbers (about two verses I think), represents the oldest known text of anything from the BIble. I believe this shows the beginning of the production of the first of the Five Books of Moses.  These five, the Torah or “Pentateuch,” came into existence in the 7th century BC. No other book of the BIble — as later counted — some 39 books of the OT as protestants count — ever existed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586.

In this sense — the 37 or else 39 books of the later OT — there was no “Hebrew Bible.”

Here is the most outlandish claim, which I shall blog upon also at a later time, in my continuing support of this theme, THAT no standardized account of THIS OT existed until the Massoetic Text of the Medieval Era (916).  This Text produced the modern notion, in a standardized, fixed form, of “THE H.B.”

The idea that this Hebrew BIble was in current use among the ancients is easily rebutted from the many ancient texts.  THIS is what I mean by saying, that, the idea of THE Hebrew Bible is one of the most impressive and outstanding myths in the history of western civilization.

It was actually just the Torah that was in use among the ancients (most of the time).  This makes the myth that they used the 39 book OT a bit like selling that they used calculus to build their roads.  This math system came into the world in 1666.

Next I shall begin mustering evidence in favor of this position.  But before I do, I have to mention that my reasons for posting this unorthodox position is that it represents an ABSOLUTE GAME-CHANGER, and shows that the textual basis for both the Vulgate (the official RCC Bible) and the KJV and the many other protestant OT Bible translations — ARE ALL BOGUS by their own standards.

Jerome (and his scribes) obviously rendered their own translation of the Hebrew text, as supposedly did the Septuagint scribes and others.  I believe this was not just A common practice, but THE COMMON practice among the ancients.  And the supplemental texts, and the cultural and theological biases they employed in this process (translation) accounts for the widely variant differences, as well grammatical and stylistic differences resulting from different LGG’s used as the target language.

This meant that there was no ONE HEBREW BIBLE, but rather many of them, with a wide range of different readings and variants.

If I make my mark here, it refutes all western religion.  Expect a dogfight  – laid out in scholarly terms, of course.

More later.

Here are a few important points to note about the so-called Hebrew Bible:

The LXX (Septuagint, Greek OT) was by the account of most scholars, produced from 250 to 100 (B).  The obvious question to ask is this: If you had a HB to be used for a template to translate it into Greek, why would it take 70 scholars more than, say, 5 to 10 years to translate it?  I could easily manage the task myself in about 20 year, working alone — never mind the point of having 70 assistants.

Even if one has the more traditional view that the work was completed in the lifetime of the king under whose supervisor-ship the translation project was supposedly initiated (Ptolemy Phildelphos II, ca. 285 – 250) it still needs explaining.  If one already has a Hebrew Bible text in place, and one simply wants to create a one-to-one correspondence text, why would it take 70 scholars more than 5 years?

It would not. The project looks like a single person, with the help of a few rabbis, put together — from the Hebrew Torah, using its Hebrew to create from oral tradition behind the Targums and the Hebrew of some written texts (Loose leaf Isaiah, see DSS) — enough of an understanding of Hebrew to create a translation-base (Hebrew) Bible.

This do-it-yourself HB, say covering some 80% of the textual range of the (much later) MT, then was used to grow its own base, translating the remaining texts desired (either from Greek or Aramaic) to make up the whole “Hebrew BIble” base, later used to create the LXX.

One such strategy a person could use to build out an entire Bible in Hebrew from Torah would be to use synonym-clustering.  Find a word in Hebrew that matches a Greek verb,  then map out synonym sets for both verbs — each in its own tongue.

Create synonym clusters this way, a way that amounts over time to creating a Hebrew – Greek Thesaurus.  By doing this, on an ongoing basis, one can learn — better and better — how to fit which Greek words with which Hebrew words.  This could be GROWN from a mere Hebrew Torah and a few “loose-leaf” prophets — Isaiah, et al

The only problem with this Lone-ranger, Hebrew Bible practice, is that the results vary widely, depending upon translator skills, cultures, theologies, and personal predilections.  And this is just what the myriad “Hebrew Bible”-based translation efforts display,

This method requires both fewer people and less time by far to create the first DIY “Hebrew Bible,” — Like the Peshitta group and the Latin Vulgate group did — than anything like the elaborate conditions described by the Letter of Aristeas — the traditional view of King Ptolemy as Patron, the Seventy divines, etc.  Think Ockham’s Razor.

The Targums still treated Hebrew as the primary “divine language” in the synagogues in the period leading up to the production of the LXX. But Daniel, ESTHER (note the ARAMAIC title) and Ezra-Nehemiah were originally written in ARAMAIC, not Hebrew.  So these, probably with the entire earliest KETUVIM, needed to be translated into Hebrew, because:

  1.  Synagogues held Hebrew as the primary, and Aramaic as the secondary, divine tongue.
  2.   Torah was already in Hebrew only.  So, in the interest of uniformity, that is, of having a complete OT Bible in just one language, everything had to be translated into Hebrew.

Here is an interesting catalogue of problems for those who challenge this view.

  1. 250 to 100 is too long — way too long, for 70 able scholars
  2.  The MT does not agree with the LXX, with the Peshitta, or the Vulgate (very much).  The Vulgate is (some say humorously) accretive.
  3.  Aquila had to manage many variant LXX versions only 200 years after the original was completed, when a Hebrew Bible was supposedly around to prevent this condition.  The HB failed as referee.  OR was it simply absent?
  4.  Aquila does not seem aware of any HB, despite all the h.oopla to the contrary.  He nearly always compares different editions of the LXX, and tries to find the least common denominator, Golden Mean, reading.  This makes for the short and choppy reading, every time. Say much. Use few.  Conserve ink. Love Aquila.  P.s. The Spartans the Athenians defeated.
  5.  According to the Theodotus Inscription, LXX Greek was the synagogue “Holy LGG” in 50, in Jerusalem, as with the bone-box (Ossuary) writings at grave sites.
  6.  But the NT records dissent from Diaspora Hellenistics.  The Sadducees were “Hebraists,” meaning the Bible was allowed only in Hebrew (and the Targums “sort-of” agree, they might appeal), and so they only accepted Torah, and perhaps some allowed Isaiah.  This explains the quotation patterns of the NT, which most oft quotes Torah, then next most often quotes Isaiah.
  7.   Also, the dominical rejoinders have words like “Every Sabbath is Moses read in your synagogues” — Torah was considered safe ground, free from dispute about its authority.
  8.  Sometimes the NT mentions “Moses and the prophets” which means the first five books and some of the prophetic writings, the ones that may be found in Hebrew, but only those prophets, or “Moses and the Hebrew-text Prophets.”  Emphasis fell upon the textual language because, “It is written …”  (you know).
  9.   The MT and The “Aleppo Codex” include a section called the “Ketuvim,” which gives the plausible appearance as having been originally in Aramaic, not Hebrew.  Thus, they cannot represent “the Hebrew bible.”

It’s just a question, a question you gotta answer: why did the targum material, intended to cover “The Hebrew Bible” in length, include only “Moses and the Prophets,” what the incidental details of NT dominical disputation include as the “Bible of the synagogues.”

No Ketuvim. Just like the Targumim. But not like the MT or LXX.

This is why the targums, orig. included only Genesis – Deuteronomy (Torah), called “targum Onkelos.”  And the later targum (say, ca. 200 A.) called “Johnathan” includes only the prophets, or the “Nevi im”, not the “Psalms section” (Ketuvim), which includes chronicles, Esther and Daniel, what I call, “the Aramaic Books”

Punchline? The MT “BECAME” around 900 the medieval-memory “Hebrew Bible of the ancients.”  But it never was. It – the Hebrew Bible of the ancient world, was more like the Samaritan Pentateuch + loose-leaf Isaiah and three other prophets, or (later called) “Moses and the Prophets.”

The MT as “the ancient Hebrew Bible” is a medieval scam, one that fooled by the RC Church and the Protestants, all of modern Christendom.

By the way, for those who care about wisdom traditions, this means that the proverbs were originally in Aramaic, and that the interested would do well to follow the Peshitta on this count.  Its Proverbs are as close to the originals as we could reasonably get — Aramaic from the year 200 (just before the making of the Greek Codex Vaticanus.

More later.

Ay Corona! It’s Y3K! Or is It 1920?


If the reader will recall, immediately following the very transitional time after WW1, a pandemic broke out, then known as THE FLU (Influenza) and exacted a toll of 20 million people.


It’s Y3K Already!!

People are beginning to stockpile goods and foods much the way many did in 1999-2000 to prepare for the BIG ONE, an allegedly VERY VERY transitional time, that did not materialize – at least then. Programmers got their COBOL on, and corporate world spent billions AND billions, and, well, together they fixed it.  Another apocalypse averted.

20 years later, we are having another one.   Maybe this time, we will get it right, and transition like we should.


Causation and Sanctions: Is History “pushed” Forward or “pulled” Forward?

The causal notion, the idea that any A might “cause” some B, has been submerged in controversy long before the days of David Hume.  What exactly do we mean by the word “cause,” and how is it related to the idea of sanctions — rewards and punishments?  You will notice that punishments and rewards (P & R hereafter) seek to motivate one to either adopt, or else avoid, certain speech patterns or deeds.  They create an “effect” (P or R) that we attach to some behavior, thus CREATING a new cause for this particular IMPOSED effect.

This shows that a certain relativity attends the idea of a cause in the legal sense of the word.  This imposed effect create a direction of value, either diminishing value (P) or else increasing value (R), and thus seeks to create “designer trends” of value.

My theory of history and value runs thus: those who attempt to run societies (history) by the imposing of NEGATIVE sanctions (P) will necessarily view history as CAUSED from behind — like a whip to the back — and propelled forward by compulsion.  This will, of course, greatly influence their notion of what it means to call something a “cause” of it future effects.

This is scenario 1.

On the other hand, those who seek to run a society by the positive (R), will view society as “being drawn from the front,” as it were, by a shiny prize dangling before one’s eyes, that compels (but not forcefully like the whip) by attraction and desire, so that the CAUSE sits in front of us, that bids us move forward in time, not behind us.

This is scenario 2.

To those who view history according to scenario 1, history and genealogy are all important (the past) in defining one’s value and identity, and which parents and grandparents you have sets the pace for your good name (or else not as good as you might like).

Those who view history according to scenario 2, however, hold instead that your meaning and identity flow from the future, to influence the present onward in the direction of continued excellence and progress, toward the “perfect” (or optimal).

Facts, or better, artifacts, are left to us from the past, but in order to explain the past, we conscript (or rather conscribe) these into the service of values.  By this I mean to say that values contextualize “facts,” in order to crown them with such an honorific title, a title to which most bits of data, left forever obscure, never attain.  But these values themselves hail from the distant future, in the form of their more perfect representatives that reside there.

This implies something very interesting for “future historiography” (what an unlikely pair of words!!), namely, that in the future, history and its attending notion of causation will be viewed — according to scenario 1 — generally in the opposite manner as religion has left these notions to us today — generally in the manner of scenario 2.

As the social order progresses, and more and more people work from an internal compass, set to pursue the ideal with the greater care and discretion (and when value soars with it generally), with more ideal constitutions and laws, with fewer crimes being committed, fewer law enforcement officials and smaller governments, with fewer attorneys, and a greater didactic role for those in the administration of justice, history will come to be viewed as “being pulled forward from the front” as if by an unseen hand, and not so much compelled and shoved forward from behind, since the promise of reward and a better future await by means of more excellent speech (carefully crafted and rehearsed public speaking and conventions lead to excellence) and more excellent deeds.

The memory of “history as tragedy” — the way it has often been written thus far (examples are the glut of military, war histories) will tend to gave way to “history as wisdom, innovation and value.”  The beginning of the ideal era will probably indicate a date of October, 2018, when I first put together my rough draft of the ideal value system.  This is not even two years old.

But so far as I am concerned, it shows that the universe is optimizing in a somewhat extreme way in this generation.  I believe in an “always optimizing cosmos.”  DNA is highly adaptive.  Geneticists do not dispute this point.  They’re fans of DNA.  This ptoimizing is bound to change everything, including (in our generation) the way we view causation, positive reward, history and the ideal.

It is the greatest time ever to be alive.

Quid Pro Quo: Schooled Again By the Free Markets

The old stand-by phrase, “Quid Pro Quo” sums up a free-market idea, fairly neatly, that we must receive wages (something) for services rendered (Something else).  Something for something, never something-for-nothing, reminds us of the free market ideal of mutual benefit in the exchange of value (goods and services).

We seem to have forgotten this ideal in one area of life, and it has (I believe) cost us very dearly.  Children do homeWORK and school WORK, and they work for no wages at all.  Further, they are not allowed — often for good reasons — to leave the campus where they attend public school.  Nevetheless, we would — in any other context — consider that COMPULSORY education means that we require the children to perform WORK (labor) at zero price.  When we do this with adults, we call it slavery, and prohibit it as an extraordinary abuse of human rights.

But when we do this with children, we think nothing of it at all.  Supposedly, as with the lie of taxation, this is necessary (homeschooling, charter schools, and other options — stand by for an exposition of another one — prove otherwise).

Picture, if you will, a very different future, for education – a free market educational environment.  Here is my QPQ (above) scenario:  Children are home-schooled, and at home, their parents present them with the standardized materials for learning the basics first — reading, writing and math — which is easy enough for parents to manage.

When children get old enough, they either go to work at the family business, and learn the business there, or they can go to a place like Mickey D’s — where the supervisor is a public HS faculty member, trained as a manager, to oversee the work of the students who go to work there to earn money.  They do this if they choose not to pursue any education any further than the basics, and then at home following a reading list of books, that they read and verbally report upon to the parents.

They belong to a book club, in effect, as a hobby supported by their parents, which continues to expand their reading comprehension and logic skills (critical discussion can also be family time).

If students choose to go on to public HS, there they take courses in Business principles and practice, stock market and basic economics (money management, investment included), excellent English; Intro to Business law and professional ethics, and finally Science and Technology Today.  The students must be paid for pursuing these course, and paid well, to help them learn to apply their coursework in the real world, to begin building a future for themselves, and to learn to LOVE EDUCATION. Getting money for work MUST BE FUN FOR THE STUDENTS.


When they finish their first two years of these courses, the students sign on for (turn in) a well-written business proposal, which is then sent to the Small Business Administration, where a big fat check returns to their business course faculty, which they dispense to the students to begin helping them build and run their own small business.

This builds A REWARD SYSTEM every step of the way, makes education enjoyable, and teaches students YES YOU CAN!!   DO very well for yourself in the world. It teaches them to take initiative, and to follow the rules and receive a handsome reward for it.  Those who follow the rule should be rewarded HANDSOMELY for it EVERY SINGLE STEP OF THE WAY.  And ye shall have model citizens.

Let us review the principle of positive sanctions.  pah zuh TIV  Re in forss MENT. Noun pl. “Any action, custom or habit, positively reinforced will tend over time to flourish.”

This means, if you want more of it, reward it. If you want less of it — don’t.   If you want students to love to learn and flourish in it, pay them well to do it, AND make a close connection in time between the action performed (You finished 2 books and described their theses very well) and the reward – you got 100 dollars cash for the work performed — THERE WILL BE CHINESE FOOD TONIGHT!!!

Be sure to praise the successful efforts of the students to the other children — who will want to follow suit.  And make money.

We have to stop treating our children — our future — badly.  We must require better of ourselves, and never compel them to work for nothing.  BAD NACHOS.  They should be paid and paid well for their labor.  Failure to do this has resulted in low test scores and faltering education for long enough. It is time to learn this very important lesson from the Free Markets — Quid Pro Quo.

Who is going to pay for this?  Parents should pool their resources and create a fund invested in the markets, to which anyone may contribute who wishes, and let parents and wealthy donors take care of the rest. Put a very responsible person in charge of the fund, perhaps the banks can help,  and then advertise the fund on TV or radio — contact the networks and ask for some free air time to advertise the fund (call it a donation to the fund on the part of the networks).

The wealth will simply show up if you get the right people in charge of the fund.  The children are worth it.   We need to pay them what they are worth to us and our future.


Deja New: How Should The English LGG READ?

To summarize at the outset, this post proposes the idea that WE SHOULD REPLACE ALL CRUD LGG — AND LGG OF MURKINESS — WITH EXCELLENT LGG THAT IS CLEAR AND ACCURATE.  While this is not new exactly, the unpacking of this proposal still might astound and amuse even the hardened cynic.  Cynics are SOOOO burgeois.

This list — of the different kinds of LGG motifs/ types that the ideal LGG would wish to avoid — presents itself as DIDACTIC.

It aims to help us better grasp the Nature of the Ideal LGG itsel.  The LGG trends toward the universal first, and then the particular.  The “profitable and valuable” requirement connects the two, and packages them together, but only accepts from that set what is excellent and represents progress.   It aims at the values (held as a system) that DNA and success-history show to be most important.  Here is the SHUN list:

Empty Reference LGG.  These words or phrases aim at description by pointing to what is absent, rather than (the proper way) to what is present.  This exhibits a form of lying, one of the most troubling of practices.  This is how botched LGG teaches us to lie, and to remain unaware that we so fib.

Some such words begin with “NOT” in the form of UN- (Satisfactrory), NON- (compliant), IR- (reducible), IL- (licit) or IM- (POSSIBLE); also exclude “Anti-” and “contra” (except in science/ physics; some objects actually do press AGAINST others); Ap-, A-, AN- (Arthrous; “Anarthrous” means “NOT HAVING the article” in grammar); the same holds for word ending in -LESS, as in faithless.  Here, the ending simply adds “NOT.”   So also DYS- (functional), DIS- (ease), …. and the list goes on ….  The punchline here is that we must take a complete inventory of the English word abuse — that amounts to simply adding NOT, either to the front or rear of the word, to show just how damn intellectually lazy we can actually become, and aim our verbal pointer squarely at NOTHING.

We must replace these — cumbersome though the task might at the first seem to us — with words that actually point to what is present.  In one of my previous posts, I aimed to show that even the sciences have fallen prey to this mischief.  There, “entropy” — a measure of disorder — note the prefix DIS-, gets that same hammer-treatment.   We should work to measure the (here decreasing) level of ORDER and ORGANIZATION (that IS present), not that which is NOT PRESENT.

“What is lacking cannot be counted” — Solomon.

Likewise, we must also remove from our vocabulary the words “Not,” “No,” “None,” “Never,” and all the other words of negation, or negative reference.  For example, the word “NO” seem innocuous enough.  We could imagine a Monty Python character chiding, “You won’t get very far in life not saying NO, now will you.”  But the truth is here more KUHN-ian than one might suppose.  Instead of the denial, No, we need an alternative proposal.  This is occasioned rather neatly in computer world with the word “else.”  Else, here, means — not this, but instead that or those.

Would you like some candy?   No I would not.  (Bad)     Would you like some candy?  I would prefer a bit of cake instead, if you have any.  (Excellent).  Here, we say what we DO want instead of what we DO NOT want, though the order of preference indicated implies this. This means that, in ideal world, we say what we would wish, not what we dislike.  The options are either YES, or ELSE (a different kind of YES), a sort of YES A or YES B.  We never say that we hate green apples, but only that we enjoy delicious golden ones.  We could, of course, indicate that we are unsure of how to answer properly, indicating simply a word that means “My answer is at the moment indeterminant,” such as “I must ponder how to answer” (implies please wait while I form my response).

We could create a convention that indicates the use of shorthand, where a single word or two represents a much longer response.   This offers the best way to proceed.  “I do not wish to answer this question at the moment” could be said “The Answer will come later” = later answer, or else.  This means that you will answer the question later, if at all.  Brevity enables one to convey much information in a very short period of time.  Since we understand time as a very profitable resource, we wish to “say it shorter, rather than longer.”

We could employ a convention for “We will now engage the shorthand discourse”  (Saves time), or we could use the one that indicates that the point is beauty of speech NOW.  This allows the more ordinary LONGHAND-speak that aims at Shakespearian flourish.  A double word phrase should be available to indicate what kind of discourse we are about to engage, and which of the IDL values takes the forefront of importance in this type of discourse.  If it is “truth and integrity,” because we are about to engage upon a dialogue about the sciences where technical LGG looms large, then we indicate at the front (from the outset) what we intend as a discourse type by signaling “TRUTH AND INTEGRITY” conventions begin now.

This keeps all aware that IDL values rule the roost, and reminds (reaffirms to) each his/ her allegiance to excellence and progress, wisdom and value.  This creates community on purpose, excellent community.

Here we see (below) briefly several other types of LGG we wish to omit from our ortholeptic (“official-speak”) dictionary.  If you cannot omit them altogether, limit them.  Here we pursue the minimalist recipe, do not use these unless you must.

    1. Death LGG
    2. Conflict LGG
    3.  Fear, Phobic, Cowardly, Terrifying, Horrific LGG   (Fear is, I believe, one of the greatest of human problems.  This OMITTED category matters in the extreme).  Here, we would list most of what you see at Halloween, and the holiday itself, and the adjectives you would associate with it. Examples of these are “Count Dracula,” and “Spooky, Creepy, Macabre.”
    4. Misery, Boredom, Dissatisfaction, Unhappiness LGG
    5. Slander-Blame LGG     Here, we seek to avoid accusing others.  Instead, look for the good (excellent rather) by which to credit whomever you might, but only truthfully.
    6. Falsity-Fiction, Forgery, Fantasy LGG   (See 9 below)    This list item includes words like “false,” “fiction,” “inaccurate,” — instead, we aim to describe the accurate, the true and the veridical.  But suppose someone asks “Do you believe that ….” where the answer is ELSE (OMG, ELSE!!!) .  You answer, “Instead, I believe that…” and you proceed to tell the truth about the topic summoned by the inquirer.  If you agree, but only in part, then you say, “I AGREE IN PART.”  With respect to THIS, yes, but in THIS WAY; with respect to THAT … ELSE.  This can all be managed easily by rehearsed-speech conventions.
    7. Violence, Abuse, Crime LGG.  Legal-eagles will need to refer to these, but even here, instead of merely restricting the use to the technical terminology of legal world to those who practice it, we can also invoke circumlocution LGG, where “stealing” is said “erroneous removal of property.”  Mistakes (errors) form part of the learning process of trial-and-error choice patterns, and so remain important to the progress of learning.  The same is true for medical-world, where names of diseases and disorders (technical terminology) can remain in medical works, and need not inhabit the popular parlance, nor the ortholeptic dictionary.
    8. Incompetence/ failure LGG.     Instead, these areas of opportunity are gold waiting to happen.
    9. Religious LGG          (This is empty reference, junk talk)
    10. Liability and Cost LGG.   We can use “price” (ROE or “rate of exchange” is even better) instead of “cost,” which implies a loss of some kind (price does not).  Here, asset-speak (even if it is reducing-assets) replaces “liability” speak.  Also, we omit LGG such as “tax,” “tariff,” “fees” — here again, cost (what is lost) is emphasized, instead of the value obtained by it.  In other words “Parking fee” should read “Paid parking privilege.”
    11. Insulting and Inflammatory LGG.   Replace this with kind-speak and temperate/ moderate LGG.
    12. Irrelevance, Worthlessness LGG.     Replace this with estimations of what is of great value.
    13. Substandard, Mediocre, Half-baked, Candy-Ass LGG.    This is the LGG you would use to describe a Vietnamese-kitchen Oil fire, and how it got started. Instead, include in your vocabulary, your own personal “Ortholeptic dictionary,” only words and phrases that pass the “excellence and greatness” standard.  This is often styled “Virtue LGG.”  You could indeed become persons of “excellence and greatness.”
    14. Damage and Injury LGG
    15. Tragedy and Misfortune LGG.
    16. Protest, Upheaval, Revolution LGG
    17. Misguided, Disoriented, Homeless, Indigent, Vagrant, Wandering-About, Nomadic, Lost LGG.      One could imagine here, a book entitled, “I Shot the Flies: And Other Exercises in Vanity”  By Albere Sartre de Beauveauxeaoix.
    18. Wanton, Erratic, Unruly, Disorderly LGG
    19. Vice LGG.   This is LGG about bad people (unsavory individuals) doing dark deeds of badness.  These people are murky, with a primeval murk, trust you me.  Replace this LGG with noble-speak, for persons of valor and excellence.
    20.  ALL LGG CONTRARY TO IDEAL VALUES.  This is implied by 20 (above) and amounts to what this list contains as a whole.
    21. Dissonance, lack of Harmony, Cacophony, Dissidence LGG
    22. Cruelty, Pain, Agony, Suffering, Trauma, LGG     (Medical world will need to use these TO HEAL, but this LGG type does not belong to the popular parlance)
    23. Against, Antagonistic, Opposition, Thwarting LGG   (Cooperation is much more helpful) Ugly, Hideous, Monstrous, Freakish LGG
    24. Distant-Past LGG        This list item includes “ancient history,” “pre-history,” “middle ages” (medieval) etc., since the concept of the past fails the test of reference.
    25. Unnecessary LGG    Prefer fewer words to the many.  Victims here are excess verbiage, junk talk, passive-voice LGG, Verbs of being (except “to exist”), excessive number of synonyms, and the like.
    26.  Dark Science LGG   Examples would include:  Frankenstein, bombs, missiles, electric chair, machine guns, mustard gas, nuclear weapons, and the like.
    27.  Cursing, Profanity, Obscenity, Harsh LGG    This LGG type used to be dubbed simply “Unprofessional” LGG.  Employ professional diction.
    28.  Degrading, Demeaning, Humiliating, Dishonorable LGG
    29.  Chaos, Anarchy, Nihilism, De-civilizing LGG
    30.  Narcissism, Selfish, Self-absorbed, Self-obsessed, Solipsism LGG

Also, to find what we could use for speech — to our own great profit, try “taking the other side of the trade,” on the vice LGG blacklisted above.

That is, consider what shape its complement or contrapositive might take, and study a thesaurus on each of the excellent-speech types might emerge.  It might be possible to extend this list, and if other LGG problem-types that I need to include shall later arise, I shall then jot them down here.  I mean by this list to assist others, as much as I might, in their noble efforts to craft excellent speech in writing, which they might at first commit to memory, and then deploy when any fitting occasion shall arise.    In any case ….

Rehearse well.  Deliver timely.  “Like apples of gold in settings of silver is a word skillfully spoken.”  — Solomon.

The New “Post-Kantian” List of Transcendentals and Such (Part 1 — Representation)

I never did like the word “Transcendental.”   I revisited the Kantian picture recently, and came up with a similar conviction I had felt only once before — the man was far too Aristotelian, and half-way Christian.  His “starry skies above and moral law within” views were clearly borrowed from the dream-world of one-legged monotheism — ironically, already refuted by David Hume.

The truth is, and no one at the university is going to tell you this, so I will — Immanuel Kant was thoroughgoingly influenced by Aristotle via the Neo-Aristotelian school associated with the thought of one Thomas Aquainas.  Aquino even used the notion of the transcendental, but applied it to questions of theology, questions not very interesting to Kant or his contemporaries.  For my money, I am leaving Kant behind.  I do not believe that philosophy really has that much to offer until a better Thomas wrote his Magnum Opus — The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).

Kant was interested in categories and direct experience, in an almost G.E. Moore kind of way.  What was a thing like “before we experienced it,” and how did our perception of the object “change it” to the mind.  It’s a bit like the telephone game, where the message is altered by the process of transmission.  Perception re-packages the original, for Kant.  To retrofit the question into the world of Thomas, we should say, “How does God see this object?,” and then “how must I see it?”, then comes the big one: How do my perceptual and cognitive categories cause me to view this object differently than the way that God sees it (as it actually is, “in itself”)??

Later philosophers worked over the categories Kant was aiming at, and decided that what we really need to know about them aims at the questions of knowledge.  What pre-conditions would have to obtain in the real world before we could make sense (render intelligible) those basic ideas we need in order to have knowledge? Or, for short, what are the most basic ingredients — metaphysical ingredients, epistemic ingredients, and (meta) ethical ingredients — we must put into our “cake” (here, the cake is a thought-system or worldview) so that we can actually interpret the world in such a way as that it — what we wake up to in the morning — makes rational sense to us.  Here, your worldview is just the “organizing scheme” by which you explain the different kinds of things you experience in the world, and work to integrate them into a single field of understanding.

Background assumptions to our experience of the real world necessarily include notions like “space” and “time.”  This will seem pathetically obvious — you must have some idea of “where” and “when” in any LGG — ideas like “before” and “after” — “over” and “below.”

But one of the most interesting questions is this:  What would a complete list of the “TD’s” look like?  I believe that Kant and others have left the list both incomplete, and have the list somewhat “botched.”  Where Kant lists “modalities,” and see the “Possibility’ names a proper category, I simply see the Aristotelian logic error of the fallacy of the “contrary to fact hypothesis,” just as with his “possible worlds” notion.

Do not get me wrong here: I think virtual modeling is a great way to learn new ideas.  But learning is not the same sort of activity as is “justifying” a claim.  Learning most often involves the trial and error method of the mouse hunting a piece of cheese in a maze.  Here, error is fine, so long as you learn from them — this represents progress, based on memory and deductive inference.  In learning, errors can help deduction, but in justifying, we must AVOID ALL ERROR.  Learning involves a METHOD, or set of methods.  Justifying needs A STANDARD or CRITERIOLOGY, not merely methods used to reach some conclusion.  The methods by which we learn do not form the standards or criteriologies by which we justify.

Both activities require the world to be a certain way (or set of ways) in order to make sense of EITHER activity — learning or justifying (proving a claim).

This kind of post — on the topic of theory of knowledge — could run on for a very long time.  I will keep it short.  I have some things to subtract from Kant’s list of TD’s, and then some things to add — things that Kant and many others have missed (and some will yet dub them “obvious” — after the fact).  Representation is the very point that Kant treated IMPLICITLY by asking how our sense represent objects to us, and how this “skews” their actual form.

Representation is a bare fact of the transmission of almost anything — knowledge: how do scientific instruments represent “the real world” to our senses;  how to numerals represent “quantity” to our eyes and minds?  Should we use Arabic numerals, Roman numerals, Greek (alpha-) numerals, or some other set?  What is the difference in what they represent as “quantity.”  Which math systems best represent “quantity”?  Kant did not broach these questions.

All Kant’s writings presuppose language(s), but he does not list it, or math systems, as transcendental.  My argument is this, from the uniformity of nature:  only one set of numerals, and only one math system can properly represent the TD of “quantity.”

This has begotten an extraordinary number of social problems.  With so many different kinds of math and logic systems in use, for even more various applications, we have the tower of babel problem in the social world of misfitting technologies, different and incompatible views of science, and of almost everything else.  Like people who hail from different cultures with different LGGs, those with different quantity (Q) foundations disagree on many things — by their implied articulation of different (Q) paradigms.

(Q) here is the symbol that stands for the “Quantity Transcendental.”  The way we represent (Q), by this or that math system(s), by this or that numeral set(s), implies that the foundations of knowledge run this way, not that way.  This is by the OTHER transcendental (R) epresentation.

I will leave off to allow my readership sufficient time to let the Koine drop, at this juncture.  Ponder well.  This is important.

My Computer Model For the Ideal LGG

I  continue working on the concept for a new computer that manages the IDL LGG and its set – math system.  The computer model for its digital logic looks like this: instead of yes and no as the two basics (representing an open gate or default — the closed gate), it offers YES or ELSE with a time-value indicators which number two, either NOW or LATER.  So the digital logic options number sixteen instead of eight since the eight options bear two defaults.  The else option depends upon the frequency of light passing through the fiber-optic (or else, quantum-dot-built) gates.  The frequency “chooses” or navigates the labyrinth of gates.


Both the now gate-function and the later gate-function can also be assigned a time-value variable based on light frequencies. Given the standard hexadecimal color spectrum 256 values are possible.  “Quantum mirrors” can probably be developed from quantum dot technology, for use in “rerouting” the photon pathways.

In principle, light can travel much faster than the drift velocity of electrons, and at frequencies measured in Terra Hertz optical transistors should be capable of extremely high frequencies, though the interactivity of photons in a material, subject to the transform limit, slows the computing speed down to the tens of Gigs — so far.  Anyway, I plan to beat the heat (thermodynamic barrier) presented by the special obstacles offered to light travel in a fiber-optic medium.

In this computer system, an odd number means “WHAT THE HELL??” IS THIS SORCERY AGAIN??  It prompts the error message:


I am still pondering at length the various options available to me for developing the photonix IDL computer to manage the IDL LGG and its math system.  One of its primary purposes will be to manage scientific data skillfully and efficiently according to systems-types scheme and the scientific logic based on this taxonomy.

Additional thoughts: We could use programmable nanotechnology to assist in photon-flow management, and frequency measurement, perhaps with the help of the “proposed innovation” I mentioned — the “quantum (dot) mirror.”

More about this topic later.