Yes I must create new terms, redefine existing terms, or clarify existing terms, or use different phrasing to prevent the falsehoods in accumulated semantics, whether fictional(fictionalisms), common(ordinary), professional (disciplinary).

Moreover, in order to unite Religion, Philosophy (what remains of it), Ethics and Morality, Law, Economics, Science, and Logic, into a single commensurable language that gives no discipline room for deception, I must correct the many ‘fictionalisms’ that plague each of the disciplines no matter how long their traditions.

So I choose terms from each that are the most common, and you will find that I choose economics, cognitive science, and physics wherever possible, because they are the youngest languages with the least …. traditional falsehoods. I use mathematics but I use it in operational language. Most of our intellectual history is heavily biased by fictionalisms (storytelling analogies with pretense of science, logic, or reason.)

Words mean what I choose them to mean, and my meanings are less subject to falsehood, since that is the purpose of the deflationary grammar (and semantics) of operationism, acquisitionism, propertarianism.

TO DEFEAT ABRAHAMISM: THE INVENTION OF LYING.

And I have an 80K word glossary to explain them.

Cheers
Advertisements