Continued Studies: The IDL LGG and the Alpha-Numeric System

So far, in my quest to isolate exactly what the IDL LGG should look like, I have encountered so many great options that it is difficult to know which ones to eliminate.  These are some of the rules I continue to follow.

  1. The LGG must show symmetry and complementarity, where all happens in pairs, and then in fours, and then in eights.
  2. It must not use the passive voice, verbs of being (except “exist”), prob. will omit the infinitive (e.g. “to run,” “to jump”), prob. will not use “I” or “me” (first person, singular) but “we,” instead.
  3. Avoids all instances of empty reference, uses even numbers only (whenever possible), avoids any “negative numbers” and the use of zero as a quantity signifier.
  4. Avoids use of the language of punishment (negative sanctions), conflict, death, violence or vice (of whatever kind).
  5. The IDL LGG centers around the flourishing use of an abundance of synonyms for the virtues of the IDL VALUE SYSTEM – e.g. wisdom, sapience, prudence, circumspection, love, loyalty, friendship, etc.
  6. The IDL LGG centers its conceptual world and vernacular around the central concepts of science, trekonomics and philosophy: systems and their parts and relations; fields and their influence; sets and set theory notions; games and game theory notions; stochastic math forms; and some computer science and neurological terminology; architecture and geometry, light theory and optics, genetics, cosmology, linguistics, astronomy, legal concepts (e.g. contracts and good faith) and the like.

But what do we do about the use of symbols for the alphabet?  Here, we have several symbols we will use.  It looks like the total number of symbols in our alphabet extends to 256, this is (interestingly, the number in use currently for computers which names the full range of color — the standard polychromatic spectral menu = 256. It also corresponds to the number of teeth in the human mouth (32) times eight people (8 x 32 = 256).

The LGG SW Australian tongue called “Arlin,” has about 200 words and is capable of the full expression of the range of what we call “ordinary LGG,” or daily jib-jab.  Some of the letters will stand for particular concepts, and others prepositions one can put on the front of the word.  Ancient Greek does this (and English does too) and it makes the language skillful and precise, so that both science and the universities have come to adopt it as the better tongue for description.  An example would be the word the two parts of the word “analysis.”  “-Lysis” is from luo, which can be (contextually) “to take apart”, where “ana” often indicates “up” or “above.”   The picture is one of a person holding something up for inspection and dissecting it.

This makes a language quite capable of nuancing any word, now this way, now that, by affixing to the front the prepositional prefix, or to the rear of the word, the suffix desired to specify just what we mean, and nothing else.  We call these “inflected” languages. The IDL LGG is highly (if need be, superabudantly) inflected.

So, far, I intend to build a list of prefix options (prepositions) and suffix options, and then root options in two lists, each list has a word that may take a compounding root from the other list (complementary root lists).  And although the alphabet will have 256 options for symbols, these will fall into groups of 8.  These are very symmetical. Some are equilateral. All are complementary.

The basic 8 are these — they are fairly simple, but are intended for typing, not scripting by hand, which could become arduous and/ or too meticulous for most people using them (There is nothing wrong with scripting them, if you have the time and patience):

  1. The Star.  Each star has a certain number of “legs” or “cones.” Some have four cones, some eight, some 16.
  2. The Diamond. 
  3. The Parallelogram.
  4. The Hexagon.  

Different options for managing these basic symbols can obtain.  But there seem to be an almost endless number of options for doing this — and I have yet to sort out which are the most profitable, and yield the greatest potential for accuracy.

One of the options is to alter the KIND of symbol used, a star with 4 cones means this, and one with 8 cones means that.  Diamonds can double in one space, with one above the other (on the one hand), or one right next to the other.  Then one could appear, slightly smaller, INSIDE the other (the fractal set of symbols does this).

Another option is to put a number inside the symbol to indicate “4 of these in a row,” so that the letter equivalent of “L” with a four inside means “LLLL” which may spell a word that means “Light.”

We may also use size as a way of changing a word’s meaning, full size or else a letter of 3/4 size.

I shall attempt to continue this post later for an update.


Why (and How) The The Writing of History Promotes Religion

This blog post will at the first seem implausible.  Yet my continued study and research in the subject repeatedly confirms this. So-ooooo, I thought I would share the latest transpirings of my studies with my readership.  First, let us recall the development of historical writing itself (in the Western tradition).  It grew out of many different forms of writing over the years, from the universal histories (see Josephus’ Antiquities), to the Roman-Greek “parallel lives” — a kind of Twin-biographical-shadows [analogies] of and between heroes, first the Greek twin, then the Roman one.  The religious version that became “The Bible,” developed over hundreds of years and adapted many forms of historical writing, eventually becoming an apocalyptic, Messianic-biographical and universal — kind of history, called by many a sort of “redemptive history.”

The Semitic notion of history begins, of course, with the Genesis account of the “Genealogy of the Cosmos,” and then of the “Languages and Nations,” and then of “The Patriarchs,” and then of the Pre-eminence and ongoing importance of Egypt (by way of Joseph).  This literary-historical backdrop sets the stage for a “Mosiac intervention.”  The Legal code of Moses provides the expounded concepts of Redemption and Atonement, that mix with “history,” to show how YHWH redeems for himself a people and how (and why to Jewish people) history requires celebration annually of the Passover (redeeming-history continued and celebrated according to Torah).

Here, Genesis + Moses Law = backdrop for Exodus — as “redemptive history” — that anticipates even greater things in the future (anticipatory and proleptic).

Nevertheless, recall the problem of empty-reference earlier mentioned (see previous posts).  Please note that rooting a religion in the past roots it squarely in what does not exist.  The redemptive historical record (memory) that it creates ties a religion to what is dead (in one metaphor scheme — to what has already been eaten by the Langoliers).  Thus, the use of writing in religion is like an attempt (using writing) to resurrect the dead, bring it back to life, as it were, into the “land of the living” (Present).  Here, we can note that religion by its mode of “historical writing” aptly foreshadows (causes?) its OWN ENDING — death and resurrection.   This is amazing, the end of the story could be nothing more than the nec. conclusion implied by the way that the story (-structure) was put together in the first place.

That is, combine the creation of the “past in a written record,” tying its readership to “death” (what is past, and cannot be again), together with a universal and Heroic history bringing its people of record (heroes) on into the future (the readership’s present), and you will get as a culmination of that “redemptive history”, the death and resurrection of the greatest and best representatives of all of the recorded heroes, at the end.

However, the bad news is that the past (being dead and lifeless) has no real value.  Yet religion relies on the past for its authority (our people go back — by genealogical history — all the way to Peter.  Religion is permanently (by permanentizing its history in a book that serves as its authority) “looking backward” — for the authority of everyone that has it, for the identity churchgoers have of themselves, for the source of everything good.  But this describes the (ideal) future, not the past.  The whole project is completely reversed.  Consider again the whole structure of the human anatomy (The Proverbs dwell on the hands, the feet, the eyes, the mouth, etc), which aims only FORWARD by design, never backwards.

Consider the direction of PROGRESS in history.  It aims only forward.  Consider the increasing value of assets and the rule of 72, which shows how long it will take to double the value of your invested money.  Invested Value grows as TIME MOVES FORWARD — not backward.   Even the history of science offers little help, save that it shows us the great superiority of the present progress  (laser-dentistry) over the older MEDIEVAL dentistry (iron jaws and wooden teeth).  Profitability moves forward, and is based on what corresponds to the real world, and what works in the real world, not upon empty reference (lies) like religion — rear-view mirror living.  Try driving by staring incessantly at the rear-view mirror …. and calamity awaits.  The apocalypse becomes inevitable with time.

The history of science, as fascinating as it is, only offers to us the “proven germ theory,” since about 1870.  This means we learned to wash our hands three times a day to keep from starting world-sweeping medieval plagues.   We have known this by good science for about 150 years.  We are barely getting started.  We have only had (scientific) aero-flight (aircraft, not balloons) for about 120 years (1906).  It wasn’t worth a nickel until about the 1930’s for passenger flights.  We have only had what I call “real science” since after WW II, say about 1948.  Electricity began to be supplied to cities generally only about 140 years ago (1880’s -1890’s). The truly-useful computer did not exist until about 40 years ago.  We have only understood human life since about 1961 — DNA discovery.

Religion aims backward.  Good science and economics aim forward.  This pits the implied historiography of one against that of the other.   History/ religion or science/ progress.  Please choose one.  Science has repeatedly proven its value.  Religious conflict often derive from arguments about the past.  These arguments, religious or not, have often caused bloody conflicts, like those of the past in the M.E.; this shows religion, with its counterproductive and wasteful monogamy, to be even more counterproductive by its addiction to the past as “sacred.”

Conclusion#1:  Historical interest, in almost anything older than about 150 years, robs us of a better future, spends countless hours of wasted time on the “dead,” instead of focusing on the future and a better life for everyone (e.g. science and economics).  This means we should prefer to study what I call the “trend-present.”   The present (in times past) has been presented to us as a kind of snapshot — the instant of “now” — but it is best understood as the crescendo of trends originating in the recent past, and continuing until now (not a snapshot now, but a trend-converging and trend-developing “now”).  This requires a bit of history, but only a bit — going backwards only as far as value requires, probably in the vast majority of cases, not more than 150 years.

So I advocate here not a complete abdication of historical study, but a severe (value-based) limitation to it, with the recommendation that we consider it to be about 150 years “trailing behind” the present.  Exceptions to the rule?  Of course we always have these.  The printing press (1453) — although valuable has been used very counterproductively — and a few others.  Mostly, it is safe to use 1776 as the cut-off point.  This is where economics began; this is when David Hume awakened us from our dogmatic slumbers; this is the beginning of the Modern written constitution (approx.) and the time of Watt’s adjustments to the steam engine.

No history book should ever preface ought (antedate) the invention of the printing press.  1452 and earlier is worthless — please note the following phrase — COMPARED TO WHAT COMES AFTER IT.   Studying what comes earlier, I have of late determined constitutes an extraordinary opportunity cost — the future.  We should spend our time studying this instead — future studies, systems studies, the sciences, economics, linguistics, recent sociology studies, light studies (What would a civilization run on photons (not electrons) look like)?, astronomy of the future, weights and measures, and the like.

Conclusion #2:  Religion runs on history (historical writing and reading), and we learned to love history in the West as a kind of sales-pitch that Western-religion sold us.  We bought it without ever criticizing its value, its counterproductive features, its conflict potential, its accuracy (the further back you go, the less accurate and confident we become, as a rule to which exceptions exist).  Note: recent findings in ancient history recast nearly the entire drama (like 1803-22 did, then, in French).  It was out-REEH-Juss!!

History promotes religion, and its putative bases of “authority;” History sustains religion, promotes religion, sells religion in cultural forms and by means we cannot easily recognize; it plugs tacit religion, filling our heads with idioms and innuendos from its norms and mores — it sells monogamy (and salacious “cheating” = violating monogamy), even in historical fiction works, and romance novels.  The very idea of “cheating” on your SPOUSE (note the singular) — sells religion as monogamy, but not obviously — to many.  Historical works moralize often, sometimes by what they quietly imply; and you can be sure that they often moralize with religious sensibilities when they do this.

What then?  Historical writing accounts for an enormous chunk of what I have called the Western “Cult of print.” We should work diligently to make writing ideal, not to make it more all-powerfully inundating than it already is.  We should eliminate the excess (beginning with burdensome history accounts), and set controls and criteria in place for “materials on paper” aimed at public consumption. We should limit public-writing edibles to the most excellent, most profitable, most erudite, or most wise writing samples only.   By the gods and goddesses!!!  This would require education.  Pls hlp. undr attk nw  (LOL).

Otherwise, you will simply have to post it on your blog.

Abate wasteful history – say pre-1776 or earlier, and we defeat religion. The Future (Ideal Values) is the key to the future.




Limited Writing: The Future Of Ideal Studies

I have adopted the preliminary conclusion that in the future, we (the human lot) will need to limit the amount of writing, and especially the quality of writing that we allow for public consumption.  This may not at the first seem to square too well with my emphases upon freedom as extremely important, esp. in the marketplace.  Let me explain.

Writing is constructive.  It attempts to give a kind of stability and permanence to our thoughts that speech does not by itself possess — although it can be recorded many ways today.  Humans are inherently symmetrical, since DNA builds from a double helix that is also symmetrical.  This means that social relations construct symmetrically, and that our writing ought to comport to this reality, down to our letters and numerals that we use to perform this important kind of communication.  One of the reasons, for instance, for the success of the biblical record was its symmetry in the original Hebrew.  Again, witness the symmetry of the Proverbs by shape.

Writing –  alphabets and numeric systems (0 – 9) come with a set of spatial relations already built-in.  Each letter or number takes on its form in light of the context provided by the others around it.  Their total set of relations then will vary from written work to written work a little bit, but the averaging process will thin out this difference with the more literature that we publish.  Spatial relations do not exist by themselves, apart from temporal relations, since some words take on a different meaning depending on “whether they appear BEFORE or else AFTER some other word in the sentence.  Thus, we say that “Literary time” unfolds one page at a time, as a narrative moves forward.  Space and time are related as a continuum; what affects the one is bound to affect the other.  Our symmetry bears upon both, and our writing has this invested within it from the outset — a certain distinct set of possible relations between words (and numbers) obtains with one alphabet form, but bears not at all the same set of relations with another.  These relations imply a paradigm that we articulate over time in the social orders that employ their respective writing systems.  Since people tend to become more intellectually aware, and tend to become more consistent over time (with their basic assumptions), many features of a society are implicit within its writing system from the beginning – before those structural features actually manifest themselves.

Each set of (alpha-numeric) “relation possibilities” changes, and is determined in advance, with the choosing of this or that writing system. In other words, the machine-like determinism that the Enlightenment Fathers thought they saw in the “Universe as Machine,” and that Christians and Jews thought they found in “Theistic determinism,” is actually found in our writing systems, and the specific uses to which they are put in writing, especially the writing the forms the basis for our social arrangements, such as constitutions, the writing on money, and the writing that makes up our primary intellectual capital.

What did he say?  He said that alphabets rule the world — okay, number systems (since these construct and measure value in economies), and then perhaps the letter-writing systems.  This has many important implicates.  Here, are some of the inferences I have drawn from these considerations.

  1.  We must create an ideal constitution and render it as nearly perfect with all our advanced technology and wits as we might.  This should be passed onto the various governments of the world for their approval, in an attempt to gain unity and uniformity wherever it might be plausible.
  2. We must continue the search for the ideal (symmetrical and complementary) LGG, and the ideal constitution (and everything else of public, legal force) should be written in this writing system
  3. Personal legal records and social security cards, even our birth or chosen names, assign to us a set of implied social relations that articulate in light of a society that represents its outworking AS A SYSTEM of social systems.
  4. Given our symmetrical nature, and the tendency of Alpha-N (writing) systems to work out their implicates across time in a machine-like way, it may be that the names and numbers assigned to us create a kind of personal imprint, and that this imprint sets in motion a “somewhat determined” future set of possibilities, we need all the more to be aware of what our public writing, and assigned writing, entails for the lives of the people of each society.

Further, very important implicates that seem to follow from these truths include these:

  1. We must eliminate all useless or worthless writing from the public realm (Ockham’s quite famous shaving instrument).  I operate with the inductive inference that no more than 10% of the writing we now possess should survive the “excellence in literature” purge that I am recommending.  5% is more realistic, but less fun to say in public.
  2. We should have a council of the literary-wise, whose criteriology and sound judgment determines whether some work is fit for publication or not, especially in the world of legal writing.
  3. Legal writing should come under special scrutiny of the experts in the field to view its potential for value, or else its counterproductive features.  We need to diminish our excessive load of legal writing more than in most areas.  This could be an ongoing task.
  4. This one will at the first seem strange.  It may well be that self-reference — as individuals or in the collective — may have a kind of deterministic effect of which we remain unaware.  Whether or not we should even have a “first person” or not remains an open question so far as “I” am concerned.  It may be that “We” is always the appropriate way to think, since DNA allows us to remain single only until about age twelve or thirteen, and then implores us to marry.  This makes “singleness” temporary and non-standard.  Even then, “we” names the parents and child together in a family of orientation.  “Individuality” is actually somewhat “unnatural,” even if it is at times necessary or expedient.  A language could appoint several different uses of ‘We’ as well.  One form could indicate a “We” of the family of orientation, another form of “We” the family of procreation, etc.
  5.  Epitaphs and other forms of death-writing, given that writing is socially constructive, should be eliminated, along with conflict language and violence-speak.  I am unsure about hockey game scores.

I shall attempt when expedient to blog further upon this and related topics.  For now, please just chew the cud for a while, and ponder the zen.  Is this good energy or what?

The Staying Power of Religion and Its Addiction to the Past

In my previous blog posts, I have pointed out that “the past” actually names something that no longer exists — the problem here is that of “empty reference.”  What I did not note, however, was the fact that religions nearly always rely on a kind of addiction to the past — for their authority, for their credibility, and even for their identity.  “Redemptive- HISTORY,” as theologians call it, accounts for the supposed “covenant-relationship” Christians believe they have with Yahweh (the myth of monotheism).

Religions also have a kind of “genealogical notion” of personal identity — who you are depends on who your forebearers are (notice that “are” sounds correct, when “WERE” is actually correct).  In ideal studies, we have learned that who we are depends on our ideals, and our future, not upon the past.  This sets us wholly at odds with religion, and we would not have it any other way.  The future, not the past, is the real, is the era of greater progress, or greater value (production), or greater wisdom and understanding.

The future holds the key to our identity, and to all that is ideal — the telos of progress and excellence.  I believe that in order to defeat the planetary addiction to religion that we must defeat the planetary addiction to the past.  This is the source and stranglehold that the blindly irrational and superstitious holds over the postmodern mind even at this late date in history.   It finally solves the riddle — why in this age of advanced science does the irrational and magical madness of religion still hold sway over the minds of men?!!

Recall that the human body, by design, only aims forward — as do Ideal Studies.  And now for the coup de grace — a bible reference to “forgetting what is behind me, I press on …”

Can I get a witness?

The History Question Revisited: The Ideal-Civilization Paradigm as Absolute Beginning

When I last considered the question of history and the new ideal paradigm, I had concluded that we still needed a traditional approach to retaining an historical record, but that we needed a history of value.  That is, I held that we need to revise our historical accounting to include a universal historical account, but one without all the war, death, religion, and other stuff that did not improve the bottom line, like innovation, science, technology, universities and the like — things that either make us smarter, wiser, wealthier, or culturally more empowered or advanced.  In short, it was to show a history of progress and “things that excel” (excellence).

As always, I have continued my wisdom quest with critical reflection and (if the gods are willing) careful analysis.  I then changed my mind — twice.  The first time, I conceded to the conclusion that the discovery of DNA as the “Double Helix,” (1961) was the mother of all scientific discoveries (a view I still hold), and that consequently, we should begin our history textbooks with the year 1960, since this was the best and most excellent of all scientific discoveries — since DNA combines both wisdom and understanding with Life and Joy (by design).  This is, I admit, a fairly radical kind of conclusion, given what has gone before.  But my second conclusion was even more so.  The more I pondered the historical situation of education and innovation on this planet, the more I realized that the ideal paradigm represents an approach so sweeping in scope (it is capable of yielding an entirely new civilization) and so novel in its articulation as a paradigm, that I realized it will entirely replace what we have known to date.  And it will not itself ever incur replacement because one cannot exceed the Ideal (by definition, one cannot transcend the transcendent [al]).  A slightly different way of putting it is this: I believe I have discovered — not merely constructed — the ideal civilization, as though I were Indiana Jones, and happened upon a huge and glittering golden city underground, while on a spectacular archaeological expedition.

Thus, Ideal Studies will probably own and replace the curriculum we have been working with so far.  The ideal version is always better.  Ideal Studies will of course include “Future Studies,” Ideal Science (Systems and Fields, Game Theory and Set Theory Studies), Ideal Economics (Trekonomics), Light-Technology Studies (The Ideal Civilization uses light and miniaturized fibre-optics to run its technology; the photon will eventually replace the electron; yet this does not necessarily exclude other energy sources), Sonics and Acoustics/ Vocal Harmony and Romantic Traditions (Ideal Music), and the like.

This was my second and more radical conclusion.  It assumes that ten or 100 thouand years from now, everything that came before the development of Ideal Civilization/ Studies will have been swept away as a primitive precursor, no longer interesting or profitable to anyone. This longer-term perspective makes the conclusion far more understandable that history-proper actually starts with the development of the Ideal Value System (November 1, 2018, Indiana, Pennsylvania) as the first step in developing the Ideal Studies approach to life that led to the articulated concept of Ideal Civilization (hardly the “Civitas Dei” notion).

It is going to replace “all that primitive stuff” anyway.  Recall that the human body by design only aims forward.  This fascinating fact actually tells us that history would have to begin only with what always lasts.  This would have to be the ideal.  So let us review some of the basics of ideal studies I have covered so far.  I shall offer here a brief list.

  1.  The end of history (here detailed) as anything other than Ideal; this essentially requires Ideal History and forbids its primitive counterpart.
  2. Rehearsed Speech as a Lifestyle
  3. The development and eventually (the exclusive use) of the Ideal Language
  4. The Ideal Value System
  5. The Ideal Civilization “Training Complex/ System” — Perhaps as a replacement of the university-college context
  6. The Vegan Diet and “Super” (Wisdom) foods, perhaps with liquid (plant) vitamins added to the food supply later
  7.  Light-Technology, Light Studies (Astronomy, Optics, Gemology, etc)
  8. Ideal Studies as curriculum, including Trekonomics
  9. Romantic Tradition and Vocal Harmony as Ideal Music
  10.  Excellent Science as “Systems and Fields, Game Theory and Sets” — Systems Theory courses will change the world in my view
  11. The Golden Book of Wisdom Project (Quatrains)
  12.  The Ideal Constitution (Wisdom Code)
  13.  A New System of Weights and Measures (We need one far more scientific than the avoirdupois system.  The new one won’t come from the international wool trade of the late 13th century. LOL).  This late Middle Ages silliness is only slightly less bizarre than the Christian calendar.
  14. DNA as a central concept and civilization-design element
  15. Ideal Math, Logic, Sets and Computers
  16. The Complete reform, or else abolition of humor and comedy, as a (surprisingly) dark element of social construction
  17. Free Markets with no Taxation
  18. Tetragamy and Octagamy — not monogamy
  19. The Earth-care Trust System
  20. A System-type classification and Empirical-Inductive (Scientific) Logic — not Aristotelian Logic.

I Love the Gods (-esses) of Science: Tetragamy Plus — Would You Believe, 8?

My research has continued, and so has my analytical reflection upon the nature of DNA and the “nuclear family.”  Earlier I had concluded from DNA’s 4 basic proteins in 2 sets of “base pairs” that the basic structure of the family was by design 2 men for 2 women for life.  Although I still hold this to be true, I think it only half the story.

Those 2 base pairs happen (in extensive combinatory construction) twice, to yield one man, and then one woman, which both persons are necessary to produce life.  Recall that life is on the highest of categories, Life and Joy along with Wisdom and understanding, in the hierarchy of priority for the ideal values system.  Life (the ideal family) actually requires twice what I had at first considered.  This is what “complementarity” (Husband fits with wife) tells us.  The upshot is what at first seems unimaginable in the western context of a civilization built upon traditional (religious) monogamy.

Both Genesis and the wisdom literature require monogamy.  DNA actually tells a story of 4 women, for 4 men, for life maximally, and 2 men for 2 women minimalistically.  It is possible to marry just one spouse, then fall in love (so to speak) with another couple and add them to your family, and repeat this until 4 men (like natural (not adopted) brothers) marry 4 women (like natural sisters).  This shows that marriage is EXTENSIBLE.  You could always grow it, if you want to.

Or one could simply carefully arrange with the help of wise counselors all eight to be married “all at once.”  Or else 4 could marry, then add two later and then two more, etc.   This is what “extensible” means.  It is pre-made to “build out” in a uniform, rational fashion — like DNA, for instance.

I have come to believe that this — octogamy — is the natural design for human happiness.  It comes with economic power, diversity in romance all one’s days, and great stability of the family, to (pro) create the ideal society.

Just remember the good news: each is free to establish the family they believe is best for themselves.  Octogamy will, however — be thou warned brethren — completely invalidate traditional religion when it turns out to yield the very best, most happy and wealthy, ideal values kinds of people.  I still intend by these references to specify as an ideal marriage and family, one that is closed and “straight” — following both DNA and the complementarity principle.   Science, including good economics and sociology, remains the key here, not religion.

Want more proof?  Look at both of your hands — carefully.  And remember that your thumbs are not fingers.  If you use your thumb to counterpose each of your fingers when counting, you will only reach eight when counting the fingers on both hands.

This is bound to bring controversy, and even an askance look from the more progressive wing perhaps, so I do in fact intend to blog on this topic at much more length when convenient.


THE IDL LGG, the Indo – European Family of LGG’s, and Frequency and Family Terms

The IDL LGG will most probably end up replacing or altering many of what I call the “Frequency List” words.  In every LGG, words appear on the FL, which list displays the words most often used by its native speakers, say, the top 1000 English words used English (We will start with Greek, but you get the idea).

We will prob. use the top 10, 000 words.  Some of these, it turns out, will be eliminated (or replaced), however, since they involve “botched concepts,” (incoherent) bad ideas, incorrectly-oriented notions.  These create intellectual problems — and sometimes rob a culture of profitability — in almost every instance.

The Indo-European Family of LGG’s names those used throughout Europe all the way to northern India. These built Western Civilization, and most of civilization as it is now, from around the world.  These tongues were thought by many to originate from Lithuania, while others name their nativity as from the Russian steppes near the Black Sea.  The oldest are Sanskrit and Greek.

These IE tongues use very similar words for family relations. For instance, the word for mother in Russian, Greek, French, Latin, Italian and German all run very similar to each other (mother, ma(e) ter, mere, etc), and the numbers 1 to 10 run likewise alike to one another in these tongues.

The IDL LGG will undoubtedly change these, since the family relation words do not tell us anything important what a mother does, or essentially is.  Words should indicate the most important functions that distinguish (set apart from the rest) what the word points to — its referent.  The numbers will prob. be linked together in sets of two.

I am still working on a particular problem with IE math, indicated by my studies, that the use of zero and one imply contradictions and problems.  For instance, the principle of math substitution allows one to do anything to an equation, so long as one performs it equally to both sides of the equation.   But this doesn’t always work out well.  This is because the using of an equal sign often joins together different kinds of things (on either side of the equal sign) that do not fit together.

I have already made the point that 1 river plus 1 river often equals one river, if the two conjoin into one, say, down the road.  The answer to an “equation-problem” depends on the KINDS of thing you add together, not just the numbers involved.  The reason your mathbook does not know this is that its math is “formal,” meaning it strips the idea of quantity (say TWO of something) from the objects of the real world (like two oranges, or two apples), and tries to manage the numbers APART FROM any particular kind of thing from the real world.  Troubbbb – bullll.

We have already learned that this is the nature of a CTF hypothesis (counterfactual), or what I call a prefactual claim.  The formal system of Algebra thus has the “Aristotle Problem” we examined earlier.  Its primary way of getting on ignores any necessary or real connection with the natural world.  This makes for anti-real math.

This means we have to fix it by attenuating its “quantity claims” to the actual kinds of things in different areas of study of the natural world.  I have already shown that -3 oranges cannot exist in the real world, so that if you want real world math, we will have to jettison the use of both zeros (as quantity indicators) and negative numbers.

In math, multiplying a 1 any number of times yields the same answer.  one to the fifth power = 1, and 1 to the third power = 1.  This is a big yawn, UNTIL you write out “1 to the 5th power = 1; and 1 to the 3rd power = 1” — then you write “1 to the third = 1 to the fifth;”  and then you decide to substract “1 to the third power” from both sides of the equation.  Then we learn the fatal truth that 0 = 1.

First, we should note that troubles with zeros and ones could imply difficult problems for computer-world, which runs everything based on them — called machine language.  Second, DNA does not like them. It agrees instead with the pure mathematicians, who like doing math by twos — two being just the number next AFTER you leave out zeros and ones.  It likes 2 – 4 – 6 – 8.

DNA (human) math does not agree with machine language math.  This incongruence of human math versus machine math could well be responsible for the instinctive “Man versus Machine” theme we see throughout western literature, a kind of basic intuition that says we have technology problems.

There is even a bumper sticker in California that reads “The machines are winning.”  It sits on the back of a CAR.

Wikipedia has a list of an infinite number of unsolved math problems if anyone might care to investigate these at

I believe that many of these problems (perhaps most) arise from the failure to take seriously what we know about the natural world from the sciences into account — in order to make our math “real world math,” instead of hypothetical-formal math.  We need to recalibrate our approach (es) to mathematics on the IDL LGG perspective.

How many stone-ings would I have to undergo for calling the approach to math we have used thus far “prefactual?   We will probably need to clean up our science language too.  Family-relations terms for IDL Households — tetragamy you will notice defines a family using different math than the traditional approach.  Math problems are everywhere.

I believe that that solution that will work best for everyone is that discipline that ended up winning the math versus logic competition — known as SET THEORY.  But I am not selling the traditional kind, since it was based on algebra.  I am going to study up and promote a kind of IDL SET THEORY, rooted in the mathematics of cell biology and DNA, with a little help from the complementarity-world of physics.

More about this topic later.

Closing In On the Ideal LGG: With a Little Help From Taylor

Recently I got myself a really excellent book, a kind of topical encyclopedia that has great information I found nowhere else.  It has offered a great deal of help in learning more about the specifics of the IDL LGG in ways I did not anticipate.  Today’s noted help comes from Taylor and friends.  This time its Samuel Taylor and his “Swift-writing” system, as it was called. Not THE Taylor.

Taylor’s Swift-writing (“tachygraphy” means “swift writing”) system was a kind shorthand (today called Stenography) of which my handy book says, “Perhaps the most effective shorthand system arose late in the 19th century, when the British stenographer, Samuel Taylor, introduced an abbreviated style of writing, a hybrid of its many predecessors, which later spawned the Pitman and Gregg shorthand methods.”  It actually started with the Greeks, this whole shorthand thing.  And that’s probably because of an unspoken rule that everything must start with the Greeks. “The historian Xenophon used a crude shorthand system to write the life and teachings of Socrates … ” (p. 81, Charles Panati, Browser’s Book of Beginnings) But skipping a bit …

A revised edition of the Gregg system is in most common use in the courts (where machines [starting 1906] are used for transcribing], and soon voice-to-text software will rule the day. Swift-writing Machines used for transcription, of course, started with 22 keys.  That’s actually true. 22.

One of the questions I have been entertaining — how many letters are there in the IDL alphabet? — has received a good deal of assistance fromt the Pitman system, which employs 25 ordinary consonants, 24 double-letter consonants, and 15 vowels.  My other research agrees with certain of its features.  The IDL LGG has twice the Pitman system, and almost exactly that of the last edition of the Gregg system (which has 132 letters).  Pitman has 65, Gregg 132.  I double 64 (almost Pitman) to get 128 total letters (almost Gregg).

This IDL alphabet system has 16 letters, each with 8 variations total, giving us 16 x 8, or 128 letters. These letters are simple geometric figures, all and only with straight lines (no curves), and each line is a “side” (lateral) of the closed letters, whose sides are parallel and equilateral.  They are usually called “stars” of a certain kind, parallelograms, diamonds, hexagons, octagons, etc.

In IDL writing, the ending of the word tells you, “This is an adjective,” or “this is a verb.”  It has a completely regular — rule-governed — way of doing everything, and the rules have no exceptions. One can see from the previous posts what kinds of LGG it will and will not have — no hypothetical LGG divorced from the facts of the real world, no O.D. (“sound” words), no death LGG,  nor conflict LGG, nor empty-reference speak, and the like (see previous posts).

The Greek LGG is the longest-lasting continuous LGG, even outlasting the Egyptian empire’s longevity of 3100 years.  Greek gets it start in 1600 BC with Linear B, and lasts of course until today — giving it a record of 3600 years.  This has been the LGG choice of the sciences, and of the universities.   It’ syntax and grammar features make it very flexible, so that its conventions can be fixed later (say, Anglicized, if one wanted to make it so), to cause it to conform to the studies that reveal the mental-ese.  To my mind, the final word on this topic has yet to be written.

The French LGG can add beautiful-speak to the already sound — and carefully chosen subset of — ancient Greek, by replacing some of its hard letters and vocabulary with the smoother French, to make it a music-ready (vocal harmony-ready) and quite capable LGG.

But for now, I plan to continue my studies with Taylor (and Pitman and Gregg) to learn what I might from shorthand systems to aid the production of the IDL tongue.

Coulda, Woulda, Mighta, Shoulda: Defeating “Pre-Factual” Statements About the Past

Today I am beginning a series of challenges that how Ideal language (IDL LGG) outperforms its current rivals — including both English and all the other natural languages, LGG’s put together by children in effect.  So far, I am demonstrating that this childishness consists in bad thought formation and primitive kinds of thinking not conducive to IDL values, the sciences, or study of anything that requires mature, thoughtful reflection and analysis.

O.D. displaces all kinds of potentially excellent speech with primitive verbal jib-jab (jib-jab being an instance of what it challenges) that helps no one.  Pre-factual statements, a fallacy in informal logic called “contrary-to-fact hypothesis” form another favorite of the childish mind.  These consist in the overuse of the Aristotelian word “If” or “What if …”   They ask after information that is simply impossible to acquire, and stipulate alternate initial conditions compared to what actually did occur.

For instance, what would have happened if there had been no U.S. civil war?  There is no way of knowing the answer to such a broad and sweeping question, since it involves changing so many variables that the guesswork involved would become quickly unmanageable.  When do we do this using the English tongue?  We do it with these words: “Could have,” “Would have,” “Should have,” and “might have,” all of which refer to the past — which does not exist in the present, but only our memory of it — and so these phrases first aim at an EMPTY REFERENT.

E.R. is philosophy-speak for “A lie.”  Second, it — the pre-factual (or CTF, see above) Hypothesis stipulates a different past with which to begin an analysis.  Not only is the real past (an ER) unavailable to us — but by a memory (say a photograph) created of it that continues in the present as a record of what NO LONGER EXISTS (thus, the ER label).  Now we are not only supposed to know the original past, but to grasp the effects of an alternate timeline, guessing at the fallout some 100 years down the road.  This is doubly faulty.

Let us take a look at the offending speech.  Could, would, should and might seem to have a common ancestor.  Note the “ould” ending, which in the case of “might” reads originally as “mould” (said like “wood” with an m at front), later changed to its present form.

The homonym sound rhymes with the old Anglo-Saxon word “good.”  Here, the word good was intended to mean a particular something that is good — a choice.  Although this seems strange to the ears today, we still use the phrase “goods and services” in economics world to mean “salable items” by the word “good (s).”

The “ould” ending indicates “opportunity + choice option” — and the first letter of two added to the front of “ould” shows what was originally added and then contracted into these words.  For example, add “You shall” (SH) + ould, and you get “Should,” where “You should” meant originally “you shall choose (do) the good that … “;  Could = can + choose the good; Would = wanted to choose the good that; and Mould (might) essentially became the same as “could” — a synonym.  “Might” focuses on having the opportunity to choose something, and “could” centers on the ability to choose something.  They have different emphases.

In addition to all the CTF’s engaged by these words, and when used of the past, the empty reference problem they add, the word “Should” brings up another difficulty — the notion of ethical obligation. Ideally, we would all do what was right because we desire to do what is excellent (voluntartily), not because we MUST (necessity of ethical burden), but because we MAY, and the choice is the excellent one to make.

When I get the chance, I shall continue my investigation of error-laden English forms, as with the O.D. and CTF problems so far discussed.  And I’ll explore ethical obligation next, as a form of speaking (or writing) which is not suited to IDL LGG.  That is, the IDL LGG will exclude the speech forms, and include only what is most excellent and profitable to all.

P.S. I prefer the “Pre-factual” statement as a listing for the error often label “CTF Hypothesis,” because the error involves judging or making an affirmation PRIOR to the investigation of the relevant facts. The IDL LGG will eventually omit the prefixes “Anti-” and “Counter-” (“Contra-“) etc.

Surprising Insights: The Ideal LGG excludes “Onomatopoeic Diction” (O.D.)

What in the world could this mean — ON – UH -MAH- TOE — PEE – IK   Dich shun?   These are words that make the sounds that created them.  For example, the word “wash” sounds like something sliding along a board.  Since this was the old way of washing clothes, they (the general populace) made the “wasshhh”  sound into the verb we use to describe the cleaning process.

great many words are like this in English too  — more than one would suspect.  But why wold the Ideal language leave these out?   Here are some of the reasons

  1.  Occasions of formal address — professors lecturing on archaeology, science journals discussing physics, etc — typically avoid them.
  2. Science generally avoids them;  so does the profitable LGG of the markets and economics;
  3. These words are very primitive and thoughtless (sensate)
  4. They supposedly enable the imagination, to make one feel as though he “has been there.”   But where does this transport of imagination take us, but to a virtual world of empty reference — either one that has never been, or was, but is no longer (the past)
  5. Moreover, vivid and image-painting LGG can do well to paint sunsets in the mind’s eye with words like scarlet, crimson, or ruby  — and a thousand metaphors and similes besides.
  6. O. D. displaces far better words and phrases of greater profitability and excellence — found in those areas of cultural development and scholsrship that tend to omit O. D.
  7. They remove FUNCTIONALITY from verbs (telling us what they do), verbs that would otherwise tell us what is important about them — their profitable and excellent features, their humanitarianism, their virtues.  In other words, they tend to displace ideal vaule and accuracy language (truth and integrity).

These words were probably among the very first that neandrathals would have used, and then built up much of the rest of their speech around them.  This would have yielded very primitive LGG as though it were assembled unevenly and awkwardly BY YOUNG CHILDREN with no linguistic acumen.   That is in fact how the natural LGG’s of planet earth appear — some more, some less.

The IDL LGG proposes the first truly excellent, fully regular, science ready and yet beautiful — vocal harmony-ready — language for the ages.  It will haveplenty of vivid speech, rehearsed speech, excellent speech, but no O.D.

I shall say more of this later when expedient.