New Insights: the Ideal World is the Real World

This post will doubtless meet with extreme skepticism. But I plan to prove my point here, as usual.  As almost everyone would suggest, this identification, the real with the ideal, encounters too many obvious counter-instances — meaning every tragedy you might read of in the news that makes the headlines.  But these do not clinch the debate so easily as one might imagine.  There’s more.

Recently, in my continuing studies, I began to ponder the point that only one real world exists, and that, when the (more) ideal world arrives via progress of whatever sort, the referent — that thing that our words intend to point at when we say “ideal World” will index exactly the same referent we name today when we say “real world.”  The TRAITS of the real world might change, but not the matching referent to the phrases, Real world, and Ideal World.

Proof 1 — the terms bear precisely the same “extralinguistic referent.”   Think on this.  There never has been any “fall.”  I believe this blog post is an absolute paradigm-shift – in – the – making.  I shall attempt to post more about this subject later.



Because Vocal Harmony Is Just Better: P. Craig’s Top Ten Favorite Songs

Westlife  (I might Change this order later — feeling fickle)

  1. Walk Away
  2. That’s Where You Find Love
  3. Obvious  (Shane rules)
  4. Something Right
  5. My Love
  6. Puzzle Of My Heart
  7. Maybe Tomorrow
  8. Us Against the World  (Here, Mark rules the known world).
  9. Amazing  (Challenger: If you’re heart’s not in it).
  10. Evergreen

Others I like incl. the Westlife version of All out of Love; Mandy; Close; When You’re Lookin’ Like That (love the flying shoe! And the pineapple head is OTT); If I Let You Go; Lay My Love on You; Beautiful in White (How good is this song?);

Backstreet Boys  (Order subject to change later). Problem I have here is that Backstreet have so many great songs.  Grrr.

  1. Drowning  (Brian is “off the hook” excellent is this song)(Sorry, Starving, Sarbaeng. Don’t care — love it no matter what).
  2. Don’t Wanna Lose You Now  (This Song could not end more perfectly. And they all sound spectack).
  3. Light On   (AJ is fantastic as usual here).
  4. Make Believe
  5. Shape of My Heart  (I esp. like Nick’s part in this song).
  6. Lose It All
  7. Climbing the Walls
  8.  Unmistakable
  9. I Still
  10. Downpour    (I did not like this song when I first heard it; now I LOVE THIS SONG. Learning curve.

Before I mention a few other great songs, I have to mention that I would give my right flying shoe if I could get Backstreet to undertake a few remakes (Lobo is superb — I’d Love You To Want Me; Don’t Expect of Me 2B Your Friend); REO Speedwagon has 3 songs); etc.  They could rule planet “remake,” but they generally avoid remakes. My #1 pick for a BB remake is “Earth Angel.” The Penguins were very rough. Dion and the BelmontsWhy Must I Be A Teenager In Love is much better for lyrics.

Other songs I really like incl. Safest Place to Hide; Inconsolable; Just Want You To Know (Fun!!) Satellite (This song is Kewl); Never Gone; Straight Through My Heart; Story of My Life; In a World Like This; Crawling Back To You; and a bucket of other ones.

If anyone is curious, it is true — I jokingly refer to the BB once in a while as “the Righteous Brothers.”  Some things r just funny. Not sure why but once I was just finishing a practice session (singing along with BB on utube) that went really well, and I tossed my headphones down at the end and blurted, “GOD I love the Righteous Brothers!” — meaning their music (Artistry).

We may live in tough times, but we can still enjoy the music. Thankfully, it’s not all going to hell in a fruit-basket.

The Ideal Value System: Life + Joy

Here are the most important elements of this extremely important hendiadic value:

  1.  The ultra-life diet and lifestyle
  2. Freedom & opportunity
  3. Friendship & work
  4. Entertainment & leisure
  5. Romance and Marriage (Living Together in Harmony & Joy)
  6. Arts & Culture (Including 8 Annual Festivals, each of which celebrates one of the ideal values)
  7. Language & Humor

Further Studies in Ideal Values: What We Mean By “Wisdom & Understanding”

What is WIsdom and Understanding?

The ideal value system has a decidedly empirical emphasis in its grasp of W & U because this virtue must be practical; it has to work well in the real world to count as wisdom.

To grasp what we might mean by this hendiad [value], we will begin to specify its eight parts this way [Here, the “*” means to indicate the connctive “and”] :

1. Patience * Self-control

Time remains the important element here.  Patience is extremely important because it takes a longish time to develop excellent character, and to grow one’s wealth.  Patience enables one to take the long-term view, to create a 1-year, 5-year, 20 year * 50 year (or even 100 year) schedule to live out his/ her life wisely, and to follow the schedule.

Self-control aims to manage one’s self internally and externally to maximize behaviors consistently with profitability and the creation of value over time, & to make these as useful for promoting the success of others as one might.  My favorite Chinese addage is this: He who rules his spirit, rules the world.

2. Discretion * Discernment

Discretion identifies the limits (legal and ethical boundaries) of excellent speech and behavior, carefully managing to stay well within them, while navigating one’s course to success, throughout her lifetime.

Discernment studies to place within their correct categories the various ideas & objects, processes and phenomena, one encounters.  It manages them with skill the way a taxonomist does the animals he works to classify accurately.  Which members belong with which sets?  Discernment answer this question aright every time.

3. Education [Includes sciences and free market studies] * Training [To Develop profitable skills and skill sets]

Not just any education will do. The point of real education skips the bare memorization of scads of obscure factoids, say, to impress people at cocktail parties.

One’s education should aim at studying those elements of human achievement and cultural development that most closely fit the ideal value system — the wise, the innovative, the profitable, the ideal, the humanitarian, the way systems actually work (science and technology), and how to improve them, business ethics, etc.

4. Strategy * Tactics

5. Insight * Innovation

6. Ideal Studies * Ideal Principles

7. Studies in Intelligence and Learning [efficiency]: LE is called “Heuristics”

8. The Study of Systems * Optimal operations/ functionality

If any important change takes place in my view on this topic, I will post it here.  The reader can also expect elaborations on these subtopics [8] to appear here.

Letters of Credit, Debt and Banking — What To Do If the Whole System Like Taxation Turns Out to Be Wrong-headed?

Since the time of the late middle ages, the innovation of letters of credit opened up new avenues of access to gaining wealth through borrowing.  A relatively new industry – banking – began to grow up around the practices of lending and borrowing.  They also offered insurance of various kinds.  The liquid capital afforded by the issuing of loans, at various rates of interest (over the years), spurred on new developments in commercial and venture capitalism.

But the rise of the newly wealthy and their newfound “vertical mobility” came with an extraordinary price that few noticed – the future.  “Future cost” forms an idiom that should have been part of the vocabulary of technical economics for hundreds of years by now, but it shall lags behind (trekonomics).  When one makes a purchase, let us say,  Jeff buys a chair, on credit, he whips out the all-powerful credit card and the clerk runs in “through the machine,” which transfers funds from Visa to the business account of “Jack’s Furniture Store.”   Here is what just happened.

Jeff created his own “debt obligation” on a given date (say, April 10, 2019) and then will have to make payments (per the terms of his credit card contract) over the next 6 months to pay off the debt. He received a “good” (i.e. the chair) on April 10, and must repay more money than the cash was worth on that day, by an amount that “depends.”   The final amount of his repaid debt depends on how long Jeff takes to repay it, the interest rate he incurs, and any penalties that might (or might not) apply.

Notice that the future has to pay more by far than the “present” would if it “paid in cash” on April 10. This means that the use of credit DEVALUES the future against a (comparatively) more valuable past. This is exactly false according to the Ideal Val Sys.   It effectively subsidizes the past as being worth more than the future – just of opposite of what is entailed by “progress and excellence.”  This stymies progress by subsidizing its competitor.

Credit creates obligations TIED TO THE PAST, and IT DEVALUES THE FUTURE. It in effect sacrifices a superabundance of future labor value for present assets that quite often depreciate in value.  And the entire banking system that has grown up since the Middle Ages both presupposing and fostering this as a relatively universal condition and even a way of life.   I believe that good economics works precisely the opposite way – here, one sacrifices the ownership of present goods and services, investing instead of spending, in order to build a greater future at the cost of what is calls the “past.”

We should think this over, and ask how we can convert an entirely-global system (over the long haul) from a debt-driven, credit feeding, economy to one that favors and subsidizes its complement – like the investor’s practice of deferred gratification mentioned above. It can be done, and I shall attempt to blog on these topics more later.  Until then, have a think about it.

The Question of a Universal History and the Ideal Val Sys

The prospect of writing a universal history – a history that spans the beginning of time (sometimes time immemorial  — wink) up until the writers’ own era  – has captured the imagination of writers, since the earliest times of the Greek and Roman (Neo- Spartan) historians.

Interestingly, in the ancient Jewish historiographic tradition, Genesis begins such an effort, with a very foggy memory (to put it mildly) of the beginning of all things, up to the Egyptian-historic “present moment” of Pharaoh Djoser – with the D dropped, and the end finished with “ph” replacing the “r” on account of that temporal fog we were just talking about.

The first real “Jewish” effort at a total (if not universal) history stems from the book of Daniel, which takes up the task by walking through empires symbolically, one by one, bringing us not only up to the present moment, but into the purported future, by the addition of a belated punchline – the last 4 chapters.

Most people do not think of the book of Daniel as an effort to pen a total history because of its unusual typology – empire hopping (by way of symbolic and largish beasts from dreams).   But this is in fact, a very interesting and somewhat obvious way to do historiography – one empire at a time — if you believe that the past is the key to the future, and that time runs forward in a linear fashion, branching out like a genealogy as it goes, with an unseen hand guiding the entire affair.

In fact, Flavius Josephus does something very similar.  Although his focus remains upon the singular people of the Jews, he follows the Danielic lead, beginning with Genesis to write his “Universal history: a monotheistic account .”   And notably, his Antiquities of the Jews does in fact contain a commentary on the Book of Daniel.  But it includes only chapters 1 – 8.

Isaac Newton, the reader will recall, did something quite similar, writing a commentary on Daniel as well.

Continuing where Josephus leaves off, Edward Gibbon penned a French Enlightenment  account of the Roman empire, with a focus on the decline (and the causes and reasons for it) of its latter years.

What should the person concerned with ideal studies think on such a matter?  After significant consideration, and a bit of waffling on the topic, I have come to the conclusion that we ought to “filter the process” of discovery (research) and recording for a universal history through the lens of the ideal value system. This would mean that we would indeed write a universal history (after all), but it would contain only those elements whose value-construction extend on into the future.

That is, the ideal value system would render an account of a universal history in a cleaned-up English (or else French), purged of all the language that contains empty reference and the other linguistic problems mentioned previously on this blog.

This account would contain only birth dates and then flourit dates for biographical entires – no death dates, nor any references to the morbid whatever.  Life and Joy construct the account, along with Wisdom and Understanding.

The challenge that this is not a “realistic” account fails in that it far-the-more entails realism by the removal of all those linguistic elements that foster empty reference, and by its commitment to Truth and Integrity.

This is actually a battle over the self-concept of the human a race, as one of excellence and great value, order and wisdom – remember, one’s self-concept is one’s destiny since people tend to walk according to their views of themselves over time  — or else as a dismal “religious picture” that matches the accounts of the Bible – filled with war, bloodshed, rape, etc.

This is what they mean by “realism,” one that very much matches the biblical account of humanity – depraved as hell and chaotic.  This justifies the need for “redemption” on this view.  The ideal view would leave one supposing that humanity is excellent and destined for great things (the truth) and NOT IN NEED of redemption (also THE TRUTH).   Here is the centerpiece of the dispute.

All accounts are selective.  The bloody, religious historiography has no good claim to realism.  It simply assumes that it does.  But it is to history what the Horror Film industry is to Hollywood – unnecessary and counterproductive drama most people do not want their children to know about.

We should carefully follow the ideal value system in creating the best and most extensive multi-volume “Universal History” ever produced – a history of innovation, trade, profitability, science and technology, of maths and logics, of linguistic innovation, new ideas (maps and compasses), shipping, of heroism and excellent behavior.

This is realism because this is who we REALLY are.  We should neither be remembered by our errors nor our folly; for none of us would ever wish to be remembered this way on a tombstone, or in the minds of loved ones who live on after one’s departure. I believe the so-called “realism” of the current accounts amount to little more than defamation of character (after the fact) accounts.

Good history needs more than just accuracy; it also needs kindness and gentleness in the ways that we manage the reputations of others.

Creating New Value For — the Universe: Trekonomics

In the old paradigm (world picture) space and time were the only really important factors we needed to account for.  But Now I am adding value – we now have the space-time/ value concept.  Here, we note that supply and demand law applies to the cosmos.  With the expanding universe, our total space is expanding (or rather space time), and since all of it has future opportunity value, its value per unit is falling.  The supply (for now) is outrunning the demand.  But Moore’s law seeks to offset this loss, by increasing the value per unit of space — highly specialized space (-time) to be sure.

I’ll post more about this topic later, but for now suffice it to say that supply and dmand apply to space ands time, and that by adding value to any one part of it, we contribute to its overall growth — on this little planet we are starting a cosmic economy.  Get in early, buy low sell high.  The space time/ value unit that falls out in light of an interesting combination of scientific models and economic features will be driving future economics texts — trekonomics starts now, courtesy of the ideal value system (see profitability and value as an element of this).

more later.

The New Math: Its Ideal and NOT EQUAL to the Old Stuff

The development of various ideal features of cultural growth has a very important elements that affects everything from the sciences and technology, to economics and music — namely, mathematics.  Math has taken the leading edge of advancement over the other areas of study for at least the last 1,700 years or so, when Euclid’s system of geometry adopted its standardized textbook form out of Alexandria, Egypt around the early 4th century.  What exactly does it mean to make math more “ideal”?  A description of ideal math properly forms the basis for the best answer to this question, and is found at some length in a previous post.  But by way of reminder, recall that the point of it all is to yield “humanitarian profitability,” whether in the sciences or economics. Another way of saying this is that excellent math pursues what is best for the general welfare and common good.  And it’s efficient.

The old math systems improperly seem to wish to reduce almost everything to an equal sign.  With a few exceptions like the “greater than or equal to” sign, or the notion of “congruence,” very few formulae used in the sciences or economics use something other than an equal sign at the end.  Equality does not always yield profitability.  In fact, it shows a “status quo” mentality at odds with it in many cases, since A = B does not show any improvement or progress from one side (i.e. term or expression) to the other side. So here at this site, for those who want it, I shall list a review of several kinds of verbs we might want to use to replace the equal sign with:

Implies, permits/ allows, causes, doubles, forbids/ prevents, aligns, replaces, reflects, retraces, changes or transforms, completes (set), supplements, translates, correlates, includes, is congruent with, is a parallel to (in respects A, B, C as with an analogy [analogy math is plausible]), implies, instigates (catalyzes), etc


The Concept of Rights Versus Privileges, Dignities and Honors

One might guess at the topical material that forms the substance of this blog post, and shall tend to it just as soon as time and convenience permit.  There are a few preliminary remarks that I can suggest in that direction, however.

First, the French Revolution, which gave birth to the fairly “religious sounding” concept of the divine (-ly granted) “RIGHTS OF MAN” — they could not capitalize it enough, was and is, clearly born of the metaphysical convictions that attended the environment out of which the notion of “inalienable rights” arose.  One of these convictions, monotheistic creationism (Deism) seems necessarily to attend the notion of inseparable rights — due process was added by the U.S. Constitution as a qualifying condition, but the concept remains adamantine in the Declaration of Independence.  “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” appears to be a somewhat philosophically-immature attempt to grasp at the Kantian notion of transcendentals — though Kant was German, not French.

It does so in specific language far more British than French or German, sounding a bit like later “Scottish Common-sense Realism.”  But it does seek Cartesian “indubitables,” here, and in the Constitution, and uses them as first principles of (Here, juridical) Reason.  The Constitution seeks to unpack in detail the declared “Inalienable rights” as a “Bill of (Inalienable) Rights.”  The rights are understood as an anthropological-legal equivalent of first principles of knowledge in philosophy — as it were, unshakeable, irrefutable, unchallengeable, and insisted upon by Reason itself.

Monotheistic creationism, was, from the vantage point of the founders, part of the indubitable package.  For a hendiadic polytheist like me, this would function to highlight the reasons we must be careful about, and even skeptical of, metaphysical dogmata.    These were very-well educated men, and authors  ever-so-aware of many of the theological and philosophical objections likely to be encountered by what they wrote and affirmed.  I would suggest that the concept of rights, as they have come down to us in the received tradition, here the “received package,” has some of the same baggage.  And I think we can do better than they, as we stand on the shoulders of giants.

One of the problems with some of the concepts of inalienable rights stems from the fact that they seems to EXPECT a challenge from, say, criminal elements.  The people most famous for going on and on about their rights, protesters and the like, are often those who feel either that their right have been grossly violated, or that their rights are threatened, or both.  By making one’s rights as iron-clad as iron can get — to reinforce them against anticipated incursions (by announcing that these are extra-, triply confirmed and most certainly divine, with only half the calories of man-made edibles).  “Guns at the ready” postures, even or especially, in legal language, often backfire and suffer from the “He has built a high gate” problem of implied provocation.

If perceived provocation meets perceived provocation in return, you have the makings of a forbidden fruit syndrome.  If nontheistic “unbelievers” perceive the dogmatic character of “DIVINE rights,” language, they will surely grow suspicious of them.  If language creates culture, especially the legal language that founds it, then language that ANTICIPATES legal violations will tend to create them over time.  They are taken as presupposed, implied or connoted in the document (s).

For these, and many other reasons, we should search for a better way of expressing a commitment to procuring for all a uniform access to legal resources and privileges when they are most necessary to protect the innocent from the abusive behaviors of others.  But since the notion of “rights” suggests the rigid monotheism of old, we should, as rational people with a more scientific outlook, study to find ways more consistent with a better world-picture to do this protecting.  I propose that we appeal to the ideal value system, as a systemic transcendental, that procures for us the privileges, dignities and honors native to humanitarian requirements — rather than the “divine rights” of an angry Ogre who WILL toss you into hell in a fruitbasket, or else a deity who absconded with our rights shortly after creating all things, and simply did not give a damn afterward — WHAT you wrote in your constitution.

I shall continue my post later, if I don’t get tossed into HELL before I resume my efforts.  These will focus on the concepts mentioned earlier, known as dignities, privileges and honors, treating them as the more profitable — and a bit less fiery — option.  Unlike the historic concept of ‘divine rights,’ we do not have to “triple-dog-dare” people to violate these in order to find out that the gods and goddesses actually did approve them.  Rights are inherently defensive in an “institutional” way, where “crime” equals “transgression against them.”  SO punishments ready themselves against such sins, crimes that are SURE to come to pass.  And so they do.

The alternative implies the ethical (but not necessarily legal) command to perform, that which upholds the dignity and honor of others, and thus nec. bears the prohibition against transgression, but secondarily.  The terms “dignity and honor” invokes ethical language, and can be understood as a transcendental necessity, rather than a divine mandatum.  What is a social TN?  Civilization functions to provide the necessary community that language, education and profitability require, and law proceeds from the necessity of protection, including the protection of the civilization itself.  This makes dignity and honor given to others a “civilization transcendental.”  Civilization is not optional.  It is necessary to the IVS and human condition.  We need to have it to procure those things necessary to our survival and happiness in the long of it.

Then I shall move on to discuss the context of, and system of, positive sanctions used to reinforce all the ideals of the IVS in all our excellent citizens, in order to show what is missing from our entire social order presently, that makes much better sense out of what would otherwise seem to be superficial, and perhaps a bit naïve, when it comes to dealing with the more aggressive elements in our society, and how legal codes should treat them.

A brief P.S. and disclaimer is in order.  No Monolithic, and ever-so-Threatening Antique, that wantonly-Metaphysical Iceberg that we all know and love — has at any time, either divinely-inspired, or otherwise approved this message.

Ideal Legal Principles and the Ideal Constitution

Ancient legal codes, including the “Law of Moses” mislead millions of people into affirming a principle called Lex Talionis (LT), that appears on the surface of the matter to offer a helpful principle in determining what amounts to “justice” in this or that case.  The whole project, including religion that is based upon it, as with the Old and New Testament teachings (If a man sheds man’s blood…), has turned out to be a kind of Trojan horse.  The reasons for this judgement are offered in my previous post on this topic.

There are in fact better legal principles that properly belong in the Ideal Constitution. These should be listed near the outset, probably shortly after the preamble, which describes the purpose of, and bases for, and proposed value and benefits of, the document and its circumstantial emergence.  These principles include:

  1. The Principle of Economy  (Less is More)(e.g. Never impose a sentence greater than the other legal Principles require).
  2. The Principle of Optimality  (prefer that which is closest to the optimal)
  3. The Principle of Profitability  (Prefer that which is most profitable to the general welfare)
  4. The Principle of Priority  (Estab. a hierarchy of priority for values and principles, and follow the appointed order)
  5. The Principle of Protection  (The law exists to protect innocent life, and their property and reputations; apply the law according to its primary purpose)
  6. The Principle of Uniformity  (Apply the law uniformly, as much as other considerations allow).

More about this topic later.