(FB 1543496543 Timestamp)
NEWBIE INFORMATION: POSSIBLE CRITICISMS
a) legit criticisms of my work, and (b) how I structure posts to cue you whether you might want to read them or not.
Itâs not like my work isnât open to criticism. The whole point of doing work in public is to attract criticism in order to improve the work. Friends, followers, and lurkers have been incredibly helpful and contributed significantly to my âcommunityâ project: propertarianism.
The correct criticisms of my work are:
1 â itâs not published (while it’s all up on line, it’s not in book format, or edited, or published, so fellow professionals can’t justly criticize it – thatâs true).
2 â itâs not finished in complete enough form that you can understand it without following me for a while. (Thatâs True.)
3 â The propertarian project consists of multiple components. I conflate (not on purpose) (a) metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (decidability), with (b) political advocacy (market government) with (c) the cause of western civilization (aryanism: heroism, truth, promise(contract), sovereignty, rule by voluntary reciprocity, and markets in everything as a consequence). This confuses people. Itâs a good criticism.
4 â Law (decidability) isnât âenoughâ for pedagogy (meaning), and people need religion: ritual and myth. (intuition). This is true. But one of my open research questions is this: is nature, history of family, and history of real heroes, and the truth enough if wrapped in ritual and festival? Can we have a âreligion without liesâ. And I think the answer is yes. I will work on that after the technical work is done.
5 â Itâs not sufficiently explanatory. Well it is actually and thatâs what will horrify you as all your sacred cows are slaughtered without mercy. My work consists of constant relations from physics through sentience. And itâs as dehumanizing as was darwin, copernicus, and aristotle.
6 â Itâs pretty counter-intuitive, and hard to understand, because of the terminology. (this is true. but because I must create a universal language of decidability across all fields of human knowledge, I pulled the best term from each field, deflated it, arranged them in series, and this âcompetitionâ caused extraordinary narrowing of meaning ( ergo, vast increases in precision). So just as eliminating the divine from argument to gain greater precision we eliminate conflation from argument to gain greater precision.
7 â There are no known technical criticisms. The truth is, that I do not know of any technical criticism of my work and I am seriously doubtful that there will exist any such criticisms â ever. It will take you a very long time to understand why. The reason is, that while I am writing in prose form, the thought process I use is procedural testing of relational calculus. (thatâs what databases do). Just as I write law in the language of philosophy using the methods of science. It will be very hard to criticize what I have done here. As far as I know it is not possible. And I am an exhaustive analyst.
But the fact that you donât understand algebraic geometry, understand formal logic, Understand relational calculus, understand algorithms, or understand testimonialismâs dimensional grammar that depends upon definitions in the form of relational calculus, is just a lack of familiarity with the grammar.
And I donât write everything formally. I start with quick sketches, and when Iâm done, I should end up with little more than one or more series of dimensional definitions, with all the âmeaningâ deducible from that set of definitions.
Once I have that then I iterate on explaining it until I get as close as possible to aphorisms if I am lucky or operational proofs otherwise, and sometimes I just resort to a narrative that make use of the terms in order to provide context.
In other words, Iâm writing PROGRAMS, and text is just inline documentation for definitions that perform functions.