It’s not like my work isn’t 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 ‘community’ project: propertarianism.
The correct criticisms of my work are:
1 – it’s not published (that’s true).
2 – it’s not finished in complete enough form that you can understand it without following me for a while. (That’s True.)
3 – I conflate (not on purpose) metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (decidability), with political advocacy (market government) with 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. It’s a good criticism.
4 – Law (decidability) isn’t ‘enough’ 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 ‘religion without lies’. And I think the answer is yes. The problem is, that’s an entirely different scope of work. And I don’t engage in the pragmatism of conflating the via negativa of law (truth) and the via-positiva of education (religion). So in keeping with the competition between via-positiva and via-negativa my intention is to produce two works, the first law, the second, ‘religion’. I have had this intention for a very long time. I don’t see how to avoid it. I had originally intended to incorporate the law in the CENTER of the ‘religious’ prose with fables in the beginning and history at the end. But that would lead to a ridiculously large tome no one could possibly carry around (i’ve tried). It is possible to condense the scientific content into a constitution of Natural Law (‘the law’) and place that in the center between myth and history. And so I might do that (if I live long enough). But I don’t want to conflate using pragmatism, the necessary competition between very clear truth, and very clear wisdom. That would only continue to duplicate the CRIME of the Abrahamists.
5 – It’s not sufficiently explanatory. Well it is actually and that’s what will horrify you as all your sacred cows are slaughtered without mercy. My work consists of constant relations from physics through sentience. And it’s as dehumanizing as was darwin, copernicus, and aristotle.
6 – It’s 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 ‘competition’ 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 – 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 – 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. (that’s 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 don’t understand algebraic geometry, understand formal logic, Understand relational calculus, understand algorithms, or understand testimonialism’s dimensional grammar that depends upon definitions in the form of relational calculus, is just a lack of familiarity with the grammar.
And I don’t write everything formally. I start with quick sketches, and when I’m done, I should end up with little more than one or more series of dimensional definitions, with all the ‘meaning’ 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, I’m writing PROGRAMS, and text is just inline documentation for definitions that perform functions.