[Guille]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie I don't disagree with this Guille, but all the logics must be brought into the same house of cards, and all must be argued to a much sounder ground... I noticed earlier you mentioned you were stuck as where to go with anun; may I suggest what I just stated, and realize that the largest conceptual systems' logic must be a major part of the analogous universology, along with all logics being contradicted and argued to better grounds. The advantages of systems' logic is its already existing mathematical foundations; although much of this math needs repair, it is still a very useful start to unite a completed picture of conceptual intentionality, emotional materialism and analogous universalism... And, like it or not, economics is the most complete universological system to start with to reach our truly attainable goals___a much better argued economics, based on John Nash's much truer equilibrium math and models... Of course there are many other disciplinary approaches at our disposal also; it's just that IMO economics would seem the easiest, as it is the most complete, as to math and systems' maturity... BTW, Leon Walrus was a physicist and mathematician before becoming an economist of initial economic equilibrium fame... If you have any better ideas of what universological system or systems to use, to unite and make your and my ideas more coherent, let me know... I just feel very strongly that some form of systems' universology is direly needed, to complete the picture... regards

I don't really understand what you are meaning. Do you want to use logic as the foundations for our theories? Then, I agree. But it depends on what you mean by foundations. I don't think there is any sense in making the mistake that so many did a century ago. But we must also take into account our time; postmodernity. Even though I'm not postmodern, I do see lots of good critiques of modernity. In the modern era (I put it 1568-1968 ) philosophers searched for a final thought, a total thought, that would govern all thinking from then onwards, and which was true. We must forget about that. I have accepted the laws of nature which are on top of us: chronos, so we accept our time; space, so we accept our relativity and subjectivity; energy, so that we accept thermodynamics limitations. So even though postmodernism is sort of an extension of modernism, just as all post-x-isms are extensions and critiques and improvements of x-ism. The good thing is that it has open the space for liberating from the stupid ideas of modernism. Now actually I would say we are no longer in postmodernism but in a transition time between postmodernism and the neomodernism which will be a way to think what there is not without needing it to become. That is where the problem rellies; philosophy is about what there could be, both in the sense that we don't know what there is and what we think there is might realize to be, and in the sense that there is not what we would like there to (think should) be and we propose it. In that sense, philosophy is all that the world isn't certain. Science is the part of all that 'what could be', what is possible, which realizes in fact; which does happen. So science is inherent within philosophy. Each time more things realize of the possible, that is why science is eating philosophy. But I don't know how we can develop a brave new world (which should be nothing like the book) for culture, society and individuals.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Guille, I just finished reading Michael Hardt's article you referenced and I have a totally different interpretation of it and the philosophical present as well, compared to your views. First I don't consider modernity/post-modernity to have any real validity or true meaning as generally defined by almost all philosophers. There is no such thing as relativity to relativity___the world is still as real as its ever been, and probably more so. It's just so many people mis-interpreting everything too far into the subjective and relative. If you have read the Copenhagen Agreement, you must realize it stated all mathematical constructs of relative and quantum mechanics would have to be mathematically figured by Newtonian Mechanics and Lorentz transformation maths. Now along comes modernism and post-modernists, without realizing this requirement of mathematics___since no math can be figured as relative math___and foolishly thinks otherwise, i.e., that the modern world is now relative and subjective, when in fact nothing of the sort changed one iota.

David and I have both tried to make this point of the Einsteinian mis-interpretation quite obvious, but many have missed it. Even Einstein agreed that Newtonian Mechanics had to be used to truly figure the real universe of relative and quantum models. Even SRT's and GRT's proof of light bending as passing the sun is no more than straight Newtonian 32ft./sec./sec. falling of photons as they pass the sun___straight Newtonian gravity. So Foucault, Derrida and company have all mis-interpreted Einstein's relativities and turned the real objective world far too subjective. If you noticed Michael Hardt clearly mentioned the power of individuals to act beyond the subjective to break the present mode of "Empire," i.e., to politically have the ability to change the entire system from within, just as Marx originally, or at least often, advised. So, my main point being, that the world is not something that a simple view of philosophy, as espoused by most modernists and post-modernists, is very accurate. It's a much more complex mix of individual desires and systems' evolution___more constructivist, as it always has been, than is otherwise thought, and again just as Michael Hardt stated. He also stated what I stated even before I read him, about uniting the many untalking disciplines into new system's thinking. This is the real task...

I have more in a minute...

regards

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> I don't really understand what you are meaning. Do you want to use logic as the foundations for our theories? Then, I agree. But it depends on what you mean by foundations. I don't think there is any sense in making the mistake that so many did a century ago. But we must also take into account our time; postmodernity.

Guille, I'm sorry but I don't even accept the non-reality of post-modernity___I don't think there is any such thing, it's just Foucault's, Derrida's and company's false illusions. And yes I do want to use logic, but a much more isomorphic and integral form or forms of logic as the foundations. As to making the mistake of a century ago, no not at all, as they never tried to unite the inter-disciplinary studies with any forms of true universality. You and I are the first to even talk of using this particular method, as far as I'm aware___and by this I mean the union of conceptual intentionality, emotional materialism and analogous universalism. I just simply stated it must be a completely integral ideas process___all the world's ideas in one idea!

Even though I'm not postmodern, I do see lots of good critiques of modernity. In the modern era (I put it 1568-1968 ) philosophers searched for a final thought, a total thought, that would govern all thinking from then onwards, and which was true. We must forget about that.

I agree there are good critiques of the modern world. I don't agree completely with your second statement. I would qualify it by stating; the integral oneness of a final thought has never been tried, and not to govern all thinking, which I never heard before, but just to create a better social justice system for democracy to flourish in. We must not forget about this!

I have accepted the laws of nature which are on top of us: chronos, so we accept our time; space, so we accept our relativity and subjectivity; energy, so that we accept thermodynamics limitations.

I accept the laws of nature on top of us, but relativity and subjectivity are false ideas, unless the super-objective is considered as coming from the suber-subjective as Ouspensky long ago pointed out, and as many Easten philosophers and logicians did, also. As to thermodynamics limitations, we can not know this, as concerns the past before first star???

So even though postmodernism is sort of an extension of modernism, just as all post-x-isms are extensions and critiques and improvements of x-ism. The good thing is that it has open the space for liberating from the stupid ideas of modernism.

You see here again you sell the modern world shorter than I and most others do. I agree that the space has been opened for liberating, but too liberating is just as bad as not liberating enough, and as far as stupid, I would just say confused and incomplete...

Now actually I would say we are no longer in postmodernism but in a transition time between postmodernism and the neomodernism which will be a way to think what there is not without needing it to become. That is where the problem rellies; philosophy is about what there could be, both in the sense that we don't know what there is and what we think there is might realize to be, and in the sense that there is not what we would like there to (think should) be and we propose it. In that sense, philosophy is all that the world isn't certain.

I agree here completely. My wife stated it thus; "The ultimate universal truth is the fear of one's unknown, complicated by or verses, the truth of what was, is and can be or should be." L.J.G.

Science is the part of all that 'what could be', what is possible, which realizes in fact; which does happen. So science is inherent within philosophy. Each time more things realize of the possible, that is why science is eating philosophy. But I don't know how we can develop a brave new world (which should be nothing like the book) for culture, society and individuals.

Guille, check out some of my notes for my next book at: http://www.midcoast.com/~gillespi/wisdom.htm If you hunt around in these notes long enough, you just may find what you are looking for. They are not complete or final edited, as another hundred pages of most recent have not been added___still the most important ideas are present, as they have been for over twenty-five years in my writings...