TRANCHE 3

The larger theme in de Soto's THE MYSTERY OF CAPITAL: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else (London: Bantam, 2000) is summarized in the following quotation (page 74):

The extralegal systems, in my opinion, constitute the most important rebellion against the status quo in the history of developing countries since their independence, and in the countries of the former Soviet bloc since the collapse of communism.

He compares contemporary extralegality with that of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries in the early development of capitalism in Europe and with the extralegality characteristic of frontier America well into the 19th century, suggesting that the contemporary case is essentially the same as the earlier ones, both being characteristic of rapid industrialization and economic development. Current rebellion against the status quo is largely because the legal structure of developing nations has not evolved apace with changing economic and urbanization patterns. Solution to contemporary problems in developing nations, he maintains, on the basis of his comparison, lies, therefore, in synthesizing and applying an integrated property system like that which emerged in the developed countries, particularly in America from the mid-19th through the early 20th centuries.

But what if de Soto's larger theme, quoted above, is not an accurate assessment of current global realities. What if those who are part of extralegal systems are not rebelling against anything, but are an expression of larger multifaceted processes de Soto does not perceive? Would it still be wise for the developing world to imitate behaviors the West formalized one- or two-hundred years ago?

Extralegal systems in the developing world, de Soto treats as extralegal within the developing world, and as having become extralegal due primarily to economic, social, and political events in the developing world. An equally convincing case, however, can be made that the extralegal systems of the developing world were “Made in the U.S.A.” and other developed countries. Indeed, much if not most of the extralegality in the developing world is actually the extralegal sector of the developed economies transported to the developing economies: Akamatsu's “flying geese” export secondary and tertiary sectors of the developed economies to the developing economies, sectors which, if they had remained in the developed economies, would have had to have become extralegal to remain competitive: it is not only cheap labor and plant that reduce the costs of production, but also lack of employee benefits and utilization of practices not in conformance with legal statute and ordinance in the developed countries. This includes housing for direct employees, for out-source employees, and for the service sector employees serving them. In the developed country, wages and benefits for these workers would be much higher because they would have to pay taxes and insurance of many sorts, and because extralegal housing and inexpensive food and medical service for all classes of workers are more difficult to arrange (though in some areas, like Los Angeles County, they are becoming increasingly available, mainly through overcrowding, private restaurants, ethnic medical clinics, and people's markets that violate local ordinances, which are not enforced because non-enforcement is in the economic interests of the legal sector).

Everyone is, of course, aware that narco-trafficking, an extralegal system in some developing countries, could not flourish without sufficient demand in the extralegal lower, middle, and upper income sectors of virtually every city, town and village in the developed countries. The developed countries have simply out-sourced production and transportation of their extralegal recreational narcotics.

Also implied by de Soto's discourse is the notion that there is a radical distinction to be made between extralegal systems and legal sectors of an economy: the two are separate from each other and what distinguishes them is the presence or absence of an adequate corpus of legal statute and supporting representations and institutions, public and private. But this is patently a great oversimplification. In the U.S., if anyone could document it, it surely would be found, for instance, that an enormous amount of the actual cost of “out-sourcing” to virtually any given legal business is under the table, in cash, in barter -- for tax purposes: extralegal practices are not only the prerogative of Enron, Global Crossing, and the like, most every business is in some part extralegal. How else would one remain competitive, is the litany oft heard around the water cooler.

One of the extralegal systems of the developing world de Soto mentions, but does not look too closely at, other than to comment on sophistication of the involved technical skills, has to do with infringements upon the integrated property system of the West: pirated intellectual properties, VCTs, CDs, VCDs, DVDs, computer software, logos, brand names, and so on. Copyright in the developing countries apparently conveys the right to copy. He does not discuss the fact that the new IT technologies were instrumental in creating a global demand for these largely cultural products, while at the same time not providing for a means to establish purchasing power parities. Comparing incomes in Vietnam, for instance, with those in Los Angeles where many of these products are produced, the purchasing power disparities, in U.S. dollar terms, are so enormous that even regional coding and reduced prices to the developing world do not begin to make these products comparably available in anything like a conceivable legal sector in, say, Vietnam. The same can be said for internet access, where comparable service relative to local incomes can cost, in U.S. dollar terms, 500 times what they cost in Los Angeles. Whose extralegal system is this, that of the developing world or of the developed world?

More importantly, de Soto does not address in any way implications of the fact that copyrights based in the new IT are so easily infringed. He does not ask if the nature of the property created in this technology is identical, similar, in principle the same, or fundamentally different from the property embodied in the integrated property systems developed one- or two-hundred years ago in the West. Is a house, an office building, a plot of land the same sort of economic entity as a piece of internetworked computer hardware? Is a novel, the specifications of a proprietary chemical process, a patentable design the same sort of economic entity as a computer software program? Is an internetworked computer, a software program, an electronically-stored piece of artwork or music wholly ownable? Can it be held as an asset that can be formalized and represented as capital in the same way as, say, a house? Is internetworked hardware and software proper property in the sense de Soto recommends the developing world integrate into a comprehensive property system? Yes, you may say. Of course, internetworked hardware and software are proper wholly ownable property: time-sharing and site licensing schemes make them so. What about software modules, elements of software that are of no real use unless fitted into larger programs along with other modules created by other developers, and even with modules that will not even be created until sometime in the future? Again, you may say yes. Royalties, rental agreements and the like will make software modules wholly ownable intellectual properties of its developers. Well, what about undedicated software modules that write other less general modules, that write other less dedicated modules, that write other less dedicated modules at the self-programmed artificial neural network learning-algorithm instructions of internetworked computers not owned by the original developer of the autopoietic (self-producing) generative software module? Who owns all this when the involved computers are reaching all the way around the world at their own discretion to create software to solve problems they must solve to solve problems they must solve to solve the problem posed to them by a human being speaking by microwave link to a sector of the internet known to have a history of solving such problems? Is any of the resultant software wholly ownable by any human economic actor? Similar problems already exist in the realms of multimedia art. Similar problems already exist in the field of biotechnology, where pattern recognition software modules are generally given free of charge to the client, and money is made by the developer in consultation fees, fees for consulting the client on how to use the module to solve his particular problems. The software is not even copyrighted. And this whole realm of quantum-based technology is not yet mature; indeed, it has barely left the breast. That is why intellectual property, art business, and patent law in the developed world currently is in a state of upheaval. The lawyers and judges are trying to dress quantum-based technologies in Newtonian clothes! They may successfully do so for a little while longer, but time is running out for the Cartesian-Newtonian notions of identity allowing property to be defined unambiguously as wholly ownable.

Autopoietic, generative artificial neural network software modules in their very nature are not wholly ownable because there is no way to define the module as being itself and only itself. This module is an automorphic instruction set. Well over 95-percent of the genomes of organisms are just such automorphic instruction sets, and the same modules exist in myriad genomes of distinct organisms, just as neural network architectural modules exist in myriad distinct brains of distinct species of organisms. It is not merely a question of who has the right to confer ownership, but of the fact that it is inherently impossible to simply identify the entity said to be wholly ownable such that it can be absolutely distinguished from other similar entities. Move the start instruction one space to the left on the genome, in the nexus of neural network connections, and the module is not the module. There are orders upon orders of modules using the same codons, and what distinguishes between them is the focus of the observer, the definitions imposed by the observer. If the focus is molecular chemistry, the module will be perceived thus and so; if the focus is quantum biochemistry, it will not be conceived thus and so. It is inherently impossible to attach traditional economic value to an entity that has non-simple identity. Such entities are not wholly ownable. Electrons have non-simple identity and exhibit the property of nonlocality. The more sophisticated the technological products made out of electrons become, the more fully they will exhibit these quantum properties of electrons.

The evolving global economic situation, particularly as it relates to the area de Soto has chosen to focus upon -- the notion of property -- is undergoing processes far more complex than extralegal rebellion against the status quo. Indeed, the IT driving economic globalization is, itself, attacking the integrated property system developed by the West to transform concrete assets into the abstraction which is capital. As capital is more and more represented and more and more moved about the planet with electrons possessing non-simple identity and nonlocality, it too will undergo fundamental change in its very defining properties, all of which are abstractions tied to the governing paradigm one- or two-hundred years ago when the integrated property system of the West emerged. Indeed, the whole institutionalization of the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm is at risk of incendiary collapse under the onslaught of post-Newtonian physics and its technological spin-offs. Extralegal systems may not be a rebellion against the status quo, they may be an expression of the demise of the Cartesian-Newtonian institutionalization. The collapse of communism may not have been the success of capitalism, but the beginning of the of the demise of the whole Cartesian-Newtonian institutionalization of which communism was a part.

As strange as it may sound, the “combinations of rules selectively borrowed from the official legal system, ad hoc improvisations and customs brought from their places of origin or locally devised”, to quote de Soto (page 77), which constitute the extralegal arrangements by which people live and conduct their economic, social, and political affairs in squatter communities, may be the nascent shadow of what eventually will replace the rapidly deteriorating but still-prevailing Cartesian-Newtonian institutionalization. Adam Smith's characterization of market capitalism, which de Soto cites, its supply and demand determined allocative processes, equilibria, market clearing operations, and so on were based on his analysis of the extralegal economies of his times, not on the prevailing guild-specified and supported mercantilist oligopolies. Indeed, one could regard the title of his book as something of a pun: the wealth of “nations”, indeed! Classical capitalism has ever only existed in the extralegal sector; the nation has ever only supported oligopolies -- all the more so today as the nation-state system comes evermore under threat from post-Newtonian technologies. It has been almost thirty years since physicist Fritjof Capra in The Tao Of Physics argued that the characterization of nature provided by post-Newtonian physics has more in common with animistic Taoism than with anything in the post-Renaissance Western world. If this is true, then it would not be surprising if animistic peoples around the world found “customs brought from their places of origin” more appropriate to their current circumstances, created in large measure by the effects of quantum-based IT-driven globalization, than explicit legal instruction sets formalized on the basis of realities that existed one- to two-hundred years ago when the Western integrated property system emerged. Should developing countries adopt notions of property that are tied to a stage of economic development that is coming to an end? Would it not make most sense for developing countries to evolve notions of property and capital, and their systematizations, in relation to contemporary realities and the historical evolution of customs in their places of origin? If the economists tell us it is not possible to skip any of the stages of growth, then they are telling us that because of scarcity, economic development is a zero sum game, that there will always be a top and a bottom of the economic heap, and that, barring the unexpected, those on top will remain on top and those beneath will remain beneath. But maybe this is not the case in quantum economies.

People in the backlash against implications of post-Newtonian physics, with their enormous institutional resources, have found very effective ways to dissemble what has transpired. This is why I feel global deautomatization will reach the full extremity. Very few university students, even philosophy and political science graduate students actually read Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Mills, and so on. With few exceptions they read only judiciously selected excerpts. The new “visionaries” of 17th and 18th century thought, associated, for instance, with the Chicago School of economics (Hayek, Friedman, et cetera), along with the “Law and Economics” movement in jurisprudence, which treats all law as epiphenomenal of capital arrangements (Richard Posner: Law and Economics; and Bruce Benson: The Enterprise of Law), have successfully disengaged from the educated public's mind natural philosophy's connection to the whole realm of 17th and 18th century political economy. If you actually read Hobbes' Leviathan, for instance, you see that right in the preface he makes his case for de jure legitimacy of the social contract by analogy to natural law, beginning the argument with “For what is the heart but a spring…”, thus tying the social contract to mechanistic natural philosophy. When Newtonian physics -- upon which social contract, Lockean majority rule, Smith's supply-demand market mechanism, the concept of federation were based by analogy -- was superceded by post-Newtonian physics, de jure legitimation of these fundamentals of constitutional democracy and capitalism could no longer be established by appeal to natural law. So these 20th century philosophers and economists -- whom Hernando de Soto follows in great detail -- rooted law in social contract theory, but the roots of social contract theory were simultaneously obscured and treated as legitimated only by “social recognition and consensus” -- thus separating natural philosophy from social, economic, and political theory. Whereas, when the Mandate of Heaven, which conformity to natural law enjoins, is missing, then recognition and consensus only convey a de facto level of legitimization. Hence, in order to conceal this loss of de jure legitimacy, the post-modernist attacks any metaphor, simile, analogy with the natural sciences presented within social science literature. Human behaviors are human created; they have nothing to do with nature. Only in this way can these people establish and maintain a “classical limit” in the social sciences which keeps post-classical physical theory wholly unconnected with social application. In order to do this, of course, they have to falsify the thought of the old “visionaries” -- the great minds of three- to four-hundred years ago -- for whom de jure legitimacy of any societal arrangement resided only in it being an expression of natural laws. My god! this notion of legitimacy was the central theme of 18th century rationalism -- not only Deism.

The success of these intellectual subterfuges postpones for a considerable period any actual coming to terms with the implications of post-Newtonian physics. The longer the postponement, the more thorough will be the deautomatization of the Cartesian-Newtonian institutionalization in process of something new emerging from it. This plays well right along side the present global counterterrorism process. Regardless of the ease or difficulty the U.S. has in dealing with Al Qaeda and Iraq, days of real reckoning are a decade and more away, as the main weapon against the attempt to globally force-feed the Cartesian-Newtonian institutionalization is protracted opposition. The functional equivalent of the set-piece-warfare stage of protracted war in all likelihood will not come until the very end of the process, and real dissolution will most certainly involve a Trojan-horse-type occurrence. This does not mean big things will not happen along the way, but that these will continue to build toward a crescendo far, far worse than ever should have been the case in a transition of this sort.

We should take seriously someone who uses theosophical-Maoist terminology like “potential energy of assets”? This manner of adapting the terminology of physics to economics is that of Marx and Engels 150 years ago and Mao in the 1930s. This is the language of a snake oil salesman, a huckster, an Elmer Gantry. Like any good piece of factually-based dark-gray propaganda, the deceptions are largely based on omission: certain things are mentioned in passing to establish a pretext of considered omission, when in fact the thing omitted is an essential. Mentioned dismissively, for example, but omitted from discursive discussion, is the fact that capital formation in the West has been concentration of capital in the hands of fewer and fewer people, fewer and fewer corporations, and that this has destroyed economic security for the vast bulk of the population. Subsistence farmers have far greater security than most Americans, and that is why Americans are so paranoid about anything that can conceivably be construed as a threat to the illusion they cultivate of cradle to grave security. Western people who express such attitudes about subsistence farming, de Soto derides as naive idealists. In the present case, he would be gravely mistaken: most of my adult life I made my living doing brutally hard physical labor in the field with a pick and shovel, working ten hours a day, often seven days a week, sometimes for periods of up to nine months without a day off. Sounds pretty much like the life of a subsistence farmer to me. Whatever bucolic idealism I might have, it is not naive.

The story de Soto tells in such glowing terms -- history of the rise of U.S. property law -- he neglects to inform us is the tale of the North American genocide of native Americans, and the Hamiltonian rape of an unspoiled Jeffersonian continental landscape. His only comment is to deride those “hung up on the cruelty” and to point out that this is a gringo karma others should not attend to (page 153). It is only his lesson to the story, with its unmentionable actual moral, that we are being told to apply to the native peoples and landscape of, say, Amazonia -- where application of de Soto's land titling in Alberto Fujimori's so-friendly-to-the-common-man Peru has created an economic powerhouse and eradicated the hidden mystery of the wealthy poor which is poverty of dead capital. Thus, there is no possibility of repeating in some measure in South America the North American unmentionable: “Looting, slavery and colonialism now have no government's imprimatur” and we have the Universal Declaration of Human rights (page 199), which prevented such unmentionables in Cambodia, Congo, the Balkans, Sri Lanka, Chechnya… none of which had anything to do with conflict over property.

This is a strong veiled plea for monolithic global monoculture on the Anglo-American model -- hence, the depredation of cultural complexity and the intellectuals who cultivate it. These intractable human problems have no cultural determinants; they are not a result of complexity, but consequences of down to earth simple rational choices made by plain people. It is, therefore, not surprising that de Soto should be endorsed by Margaret Thatcher and Milton Friedman. And he likely will get a Nobel prize for these observations.

De Soto is in large measure comparing incomparables: now, today, a situation of forced urbanization and cultural homogenization with, then, in times of the American frontier, the expropriation and settlement of a vast unpartitioned and sparsely populated continental landscape, where a holocaust of the existing population was an integral aspect of the settlement process, and slavery was employed in agriculture to produce surplus value. Even where the parallel is closer, the Amazon basin, for instance, there is still comparison of things not comparable: agro-industrial corporate combines in the Amazon, if in many cases one step removed; myriad single persons and nuclear families in America's “wild West”. Today, the bulk of the rural areas in contention have long been settled, partitioned, feudalized, tribalized, sectioned into village communal lands and hamlets; there have been multi-tiered alpine agricultural systems, the rise and fall of civilizations, land tenure impositions of colonial authorities (in Vietnam, for instance, rules governing disposition of village land ownership and use changed over 80 times in the first half of the 20th century under French administration and the Diem regime), thousands of years of slash-and-burn land-use conventions, communal wet rice terracing, planting, and harvesting; some areas have had vast communally engineered, constructed, and maintained irrigation systems laid out relative to cosmologically-referenced modular grid systems which have been coupled to patterns of daily animistic ritual, gift exchange, and kinship and marriage patterns (Bali, Cambodia, and Mexico, for instance). Some national territories have dozens, even hundreds of distinct tribal traditions related to animistic land use and spirit propitiations, which, if brought into one comprehensive property statute, would definitely impose cultural homogenization. This would, of course, not be of much concern to de Soto or those in the “Law and Economics” movement, but it would be of concern to those who believe cultural seed banks are essential to continued human adaptation to a changing environment. Not to mention those who believe the involved animistic practices relative to land tenure are far closer to the dictates implied by post-Newtonian physical theory than anything in American or European statutory law.

In a family compound overlooking rice fields at the base of Chiang Dao Mountain in north Thailand, the dog accosts all first-time visitors, barking up a storm and nipping at the ankles, forcing the visitor to keep moving in order to escape the bite. No one living in the compound intervenes on behalf of the visitor. The dog herds the visitor all over the compound, into the rice fields and back, then suddenly stops, gives a little yap, flips up its tail, and returns to the shade for continuation of its nap. If the visitor asks, What the hell was that all about, he is told that he has just visited all the sacred sites on the property where the spirits must be propitiated. When de Soto strolled through rice fields in Bali and one dog then another barked at him, he thought he was identifying Western-style ownership boundaries, Robert Ardrey-ish territorial imperatives picked up by the dogs from their extralegal landed masters. But he was in a landscape terraced in modules, the dimensions of which were increments of a cosmologically-derived unit length, where the “surveyor's corners” are points of spiritual power identified by animistic “feeling-into” and where the irrigation system, communally maintained for generations upon generations, was designed in relation to these propitiation points. The houses and temples in which the people communally working the fields live and spiritually commune were built on basis of modular increments of the same cosmologically-derived unit length. It is probable, as stated in THE MOON OF HOA BINH, that this cosmological unit length for dimensioning in building and landscape ecology is a multiple of the electro-chemical dimensioning of intra-neuronal nuclear DNA, thereby contributing considerably to the environmental psychology of traditional Balinese environmental design -- not to mention just plain good health.

De Soto uses “capitalism” as if the word needs no definition and there is only one variety.

Not only has de Soto bought into the “classical limit” in the social sciences, but he subscribes to the central falsification of quantum mechanics, a falsification made in order to prevent its application to the social sciences. He quotes (page 32) Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: “For all happening and being-so is accidental.” The false central dogma of quantum theory is that the Schrödinger wave-function is correctly interpreted in terms of probability amplitudes, not m-valued-logics. Both Wittgenstein's statement and this central dogma are a depredation of nature. What de Soto does not tell us is that, after writing Tractatus, Wittgenstein arrived at the conclusion that he had “philosophical disease”, and that the philosopher then went off and spent years working as a gardener so as to recover from this illness.

There is no such thing as intellectual property in America; there is, however, corporate property stolen from intellectuals.

In America today, the vast majority of people own no property; property owns those people. There is nothing of significance in their lives about which they have real choices. The only way they can gain volition is to abandon their property. Only those few Magnificent Lorenzo's who have accumulated so much capital that assets no longer have significance own property.

Make a law to bar foreigners from owning land so as to retain control over land use in the national territory, then institute American property law type conventions and see how long the usual distinction between assets and capital is maintained: instead of assets being leveraged into capital, capital will leverage assets such that national ownership of national territory will no longer suffice to determine land-use pattern. The agenda will be set elsewhere. Only the dominant economies can control land use while allowing freedom of ownership to foreigners. If you do not care that India becomes indistinguishable from Indiana, then this is no matter for your concern.

It may be that taking the best option in a bad circumstance involves an element of choice. But when one considers the absence of choice in regards to the bad circumstance presenting the options, it is clear that taking the best option is done under duress and can therefore be regarded as forced. Mass migration from a failed rural economy to urban slums is such a case -- not “…hundreds of thousands of people were trundling down the newly built highways to the cities so alluringly described in the new radio programmes” (page 14), as de Soto would have it.

Recommending formation of single-valued property law systematics when m-valued quantal technologies are destroying validity of this systematics is to engage in a sting operation, a form of entrapment. De Soto counsels a policy of trying to turn back the clock or to stop time. He apparently agrees with the empower-America notion that time ended with the fall of communism. If we are to believe William Sullivan (The Secret of the Inca: Myth, Astronomy, and the War Against Time, N.Y.: Crown, 1996) -- and there is much reason to do so -- this was the Inca policy that led a whole civilization to succumb to a handful of Spaniards.

Derek Dillon says in MOON: Single-valued property is theft! Prescriptive law is criminal! Why? Because they prevent self-organizational competency (social, economic, political) by subverting quantal relative-state in any population corpus. This is no argument against private property, only against that type of private property defined by application of a single-valued logic. This is no argument against law, only against that type of law formulated by application of a single-valued logic. That which makes extralegal systems so adaptive, so functional, is their extralegality. Once formalized, once extralegal law has been entrapped by an allegiance to formal law, it is no longer adaptive -- because it has been made into rigid structures. A structure is a function automatized. Extralegal laws are functions that become automatized in process of formalization. Adaptation requires deautomatization. Legislative decision and formalization algorithms are simply too cumbersome to maintain real-time relevance to complex dynamical systems undergoing rapid technologically-forced phase transitions. Extralegal laws governing a community of practice are not prescriptive so much as exemplary, and not enforceable so much as negotiable.

De Soto says that in getting “pre-emption” -- the idea that making improvements gives a squatter the legal right to buy the land squatted upon -- acknowledged as a legal principle, American squatters still “were far from winning the war” (page 107). But was winning the war legalization, or was legalization losing the war by re-instating oligopolistic economies? Formalization of property does not so much create capital; it concentrates capital by making it more easily pyramidally leverageable. There was obviously capital in America before the property system was formalized during the late 19th century in the manner De Soto describes; it is just that that capital could not be leveraged easily into pyramids held by a few hands. De Soto does not mention that the rise of the American integrated property system was simultaneous with, and largely responsible for, the rise of the American Robber Barons. Opposition from the nation-state to the extralegal sector restricts capital creation in that sector; capital is concentrated in the hands of a few only with formalization and assistance of the nation-state. This is no argument against formalization of property and institutionalization of an integrated property system, so long as property and legal statute are not formalized by application of a single-valued logic. Value of property must be assessed and stated in local m-logically-valued monetary units, which will encourage capital formation modulated by local sustainable development indicators and local economic indicators stacked on the monetary base as m-logical-values, thus adding the viscosity of fractal entrapment which discourages hot-money-type speculation and pyramidal leveraging, without legislating capital controls or income redistribution.

In this book, de Soto fails to mention that through the 19th century, as integrated property law was codified in America, there were myriad local and regional currencies issued privately and publicly, each competing one with another. Not having mentioned it, he therefore has not sought significance of this fact, nor has he investigated the consequences of its absence in current developing and ex-communist economies. Premature imposition of a national currency -- primarily a consequence of colonialism, a consequence following upon monetization of the subsistence economy and imposed to service the mother country's demand for extractive efficiency -- dictates rural-urban purchasing power disparities and absence of a rural tax base which cannot be overcome by any property system absent creation of local and provincial currencies. Money is local! It is local whether the locale is rural or urban -- and the urban local value of the national currency is disparate with the rural local value of the same national currency. Argentina's provinces intuitively understand this and that is why they have created their own currencies. But the IMF cannot indulge this insufferable self-interest at the global periphery, for the New Yorkers' leverage upon Argentine capital formation would not be unfettered in presence of nested local currencies: there would be viscosity. De Soto discombobulates his account of the relevant factors by presenting implausible notions, not about the chain of title, but about the chain of monetary creation. He quotes a book on linguistics and perceptual psychology, not economics (George A. Miller and Philip N. Johnson-Laird, Language and Perception, Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1976) to support his position. He quotes Miller and Johnson-Laird on page 55: “…money… presupposes the institution of property.” This is not correct. Money presupposes the notion of goods, not property. There was obviously money thousands of years before there was property in the sense used by de Soto. The chain of monetary being is more something like this, going from concrete to abstract: goods, money, commodities, assets, property, capital. Money was used as tender in America long before there was legal tender or a central bank. Money obviously does not presuppose commodities, assets, property or capital as backing or in any other sense. If it did, the U.S. central bank would not have issued unbacked fiat money in the trillions for the Eurodollar market since demise of the Bretton-Woods system, and the IMF would not have been able to offer Special Drawing Rights as money available only to sovereigns.

De Soto's main point about necessity for an integrated property system is that assets cannot become “fungible” in representations without such a system, and capital cannot grow without this fungibility. He says that “…growth is all about obtaining high-value outputs from low-value inputs” (page 200), but he does not mention that such obtaining and such growth comes at an entropic cost to the environment (physical, social, psychological), which developed countries in large measure transfer to developing countries. This is a great oversight, as the extralegal systems he studies are a function of this transfer of entropy (disorder). An integrated property system, such as that which has evolved in the West to allow ever increasing capital formation, has no means by which to exercise choice as to which natural scale level, what social attention cathexsis, the particular psychological space from which negentropy is pulled to be degraded in the process economic growth. De Soto would undoubtedly quote Tractatus and maintain that such things are mere matters of accident. Type of technology employed, however, clearly has great influence over such choices, as do the principles of organization through which the technology is interfaced with human and natural processes. Presently, quantum-based technologies are increasingly setting the format for globalization, while Cartesian-Newtonian principles of organization are the interface for this post-Newtonian technology with human and natural processes -- and the entropic costs of this arrangement are becoming enormous. Only when quantum principles of self-organization become the technology-human interface will there be any real choice as to from where the negentropy is pulled and to where the resultant entropy production is to be deposited. This choice in large measure will be executed with m-logically-valued monetary units.

“Formal law is increasingly losing its legitimacy” (page 153), according to de Soto. Is this merely because of the failure of property law to evolve with the changing times, or is it because the whole national-state institutionalization of the three- to four-hundred year old Cartesian-Newtonian worldview construct is increasingly losing its legitimacy as those institutions, across the board, fail in greater and greater measure to adequately manage the complexity attendant upon the technological innovation -- and its social, political, and economic consequences -- that has transpired over the last hundred years, within which post-Newtonian physics has evermore prevailed through experimental verification and applications? De Soto uses the term “war” (page 107) in characterizing extralegal systems. Are current extralegal systems, including the transnational terrorist organizations and narco-cartels which use cover of the extralegal sector, in fact, themselves, in their form and functions independent of their actions, war on outmoded Cartesian-Newtonian legal systems, war on the very notion of the Newtonian nation-state and its supraordinate agglomerations? Has state opposition to unstructured quantal fluidity in organizational processes of every kind -- utilization of fractal boundaries, for instance -- regressed such organizational processes into the immature violent forms they have taken? Are the highly adaptive self-organizing algorithms employed in extralegal organizational processes precursors of the m-logically-valued autopoietic quantum economies that will replace what de Soto calls capitalism?

Reading about Mexico's agricultural problems in face of NAFTA (“Floundering in a tariff-free landscape”, The Economist, November 30th-December 6th, 2002), which The Economist blames on the Mexican government's failure to meet the structural challenges of globalization, is enough to make Derek Dillon nauseous and furious. Why is that? Living in Los Angeles he could buy tropical fruits, fresh vegetables, and avocados dirt cheap at the local Chicano markets down the street, and he could for a pittance get for home preparation at the local Japanese working class market chunks of fresh sashimi fish taken off the Mexican coast. The last time he had bought avocados at such a price in L.A. was during the 1960s, and the sashimi, while just as good as that purchased during a period of residence in Kyoto, was literally 1/100th of the price. Taking advantage of this NAFTA-globalization windfall -- and who in their right mind would pay many times more for inferior products at the supermarkets, the fresh fish and vegetables being sprayed with brain-cell-necrotizing MSG to sustain the appearance -- he was very much aware of the implications for the Mexican farmer and fisherman. Derek Dillon came, on his father's side, from a family of yeoman farmers settled in Pennsylvania from the 1740s, and on his mother's side, from a German family of tree gardeners who had been nurserymen back into the Teutonic Middle Ages. The last functional family farm had been driven into the ground in the 1930s by economic forces not too dissimilar from those presently driving Mexican farmers up against the wall. The Economist says that Mexico “acceded” to GATT, and this is surely a well chosen word. One would have to similarly well-choose a word to characterize Mexican acquiescence to NAFTA. Mexico is being induced to destroy its farming in the same manner American farming was destroyed. Farming has nothing to do with economics, it is a way of life; agriculture has to do with economics, and since agro-industry has taken over American agriculture, corporate culture has replaced what once was a way of life. There are no ways of life in America anymore; there are ways of many other things, mostly reprehensible things, but no more ways of life. Indeed, it is a post-human, post-way-of-life, future America forces down throats globally. And why is America killing ways of life everywhere they can still be found, when the economic means of sustaining life and its ways are more ready to hand than ever before? The answer is to be found in the means ready to hand. The means are quantum economies, and quantum economies are opposed to the ways of death America is obsessively identified with. Money is local in Mexico, just as it is anywhere else in this planetary economy globalizing with information technologies created by use of electrons possessing quantum nonlocality, non-simple identity, and m-logically-valued properties. The rural peso in Mexico does not have the same value as the urban peso in Mexico. But the econometric models being run on single-valued-logic computers treat the value of the peso as being the value of the peso; such models, such computers, do not entertain pesos with the m-logically-valued quantum properties they actually have, and which continually influence market behaviors. That this is not a technological necessity but a necessity determined by the psychology of obsession is illustrated by the responses of Nobel laureates in economics, founders of planetary credit card economies, master-of-the-universe financiers, and the-most-altruistic multibillionaire philanthropists to the idea that monetary units have self-referential properties reflecting reflexivities in market behavior -- these self-referential reflexivities being expressions of m-logically-valued properties of quantum economies. Like obsessives everywhere, they are downright put out by this notion, a notion which contradicts their obsessive identification, a notion that would allow the Mexican farmer to continue his way of life in a tariff-free and monetary-controls-free world. The fact is, however, they are opposed to this way of life, to all ways of life. Life and its ways is not to their liking. This is not only because, post-Bretton-Woods, there is no constraint upon America's ability to freely print dollars to cover its balance of payments deficit -- except American credibility, which largely depends upon frequent demonstrations of America's war-making capacity -- a fact that puts the urban peso at a great disadvantage relative even to the rural domestic dollar, not to mention the rural peso relative to the urban domestic dollar and the Eurodollar and the petrodollar, but because the very fact of the existence of quantum economies is so disorienting to the obsessives that they are willing to insure a post-human future just to hide from that fact. This is not only because the metaphysical principles, elaborated in the 17th and 18th centuries by appeal to analogy with natural law, giving de jure legitimacy to the social contract, majority rule, market supply and demand dynamic, and the principle of federation have been irrevocably slain by the implications of quantum mechanics and relativity physics for those very natural laws political economy was based upon by analogy, but because, if public acknowledgement of the fact that the peso is not the peso were allowed, then there would be no alternative open to the financier but to privately acknowledge that the financier is not the financier: both the peso and the financier would have to have non-simple quantal identity. This prospect is so frightening, so strongly regarded as equivalent to psychosis, to schizophrenia, to pounding your head against the wall while slapping your pud in the corner, that whatever it takes to get into a post-human future as rapidly as possible is the program of the financier, the oilman, the banker, the philanthropist, the Nobel laureate, the obsessives.

Surely, you have not closely read the above entries, or you could not be saying that “the Vietnam War did not push the U.S. currency off the gold standard”, that “OPEC and the oil shock did that”. Nor would you be questioning sanity of the Al Qaeda cadre who gave the al-Jazeera interview which claimed that one component of Al Qaeda strategy is to collapse confidence in the U.S. dollar. If this claim about strategy were the case, a decision by the U.S. to finance its current wars in the manner it financed the Vietnam War (i.e., not with higher taxes) could only be applauded by Al Qaeda.

Arguably, the classical gold standard ended for the last time following the London Conference of 1933 when Roosevelt made clear the U.S. would accept no restrictions on its freedom of action in financial matters. In April of that year, the dollar was separated from gold when gold exports were halted. Toward the end of World War Two, as the Bretton Woods system was put into place following the July of 1944 signing of the articles of the IMF, a gold exchange mechanism quite different from the classical 19th century gold standard was created. The dollar became the international reserve currency and the U.S. agreed to exchange dollars for gold on sovereign demand only. The value of gold was set at 35US$ per ounce. This worked well, so long as the U.S. ran its postwar trade surplus (through roughly 1958) and so long as the value of the dollar remained relatively stable. Pressure on the dollar started to build as the deficit grew, and in 1964 became marked when the decision to escalate in Vietnam was announced. Indeed, at this time, shortly after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the U.S. was compelled to establish capital controls: an interest equalization tax. The combination of continued escalation and the worsening effect of the war on balance-of-payments, coupled to LBJ's Great Society expenditures led to an overheated domestic economy and resultant inflation. The pound devalued in November of 1967 and set off a great deal of speculation against the dollar (massive gold purchases in European gold markets). Billions of dollars worth of gold had to be sold to maintain the 35US$ per ounce value and the U.S. was obliged by the terms of the Bretton Woods agreement to provide 59 percent of this gold, which was a massive drain on its gold reserves held in Ft. Knox. LBJ attempted to negotiate new gold pool rules, but these were rejected by the other member countries. In January of 1968, he instituted new capital controls in an attempt to slow the speculative attack on the dollar. In march of 1968, soon after the Vietcong's Tet Offensive of that year, the U.S. stated that it would no longer support a free market price for gold of 35US$ per ounce, and the price of gold began to climb. The price of monetary gold was separated from the price of free market gold and monetary gold remained 35US$ per ounce. The crisis came in early 1971 with massive speculation against the dollar in the form of huge dollar inflows to Germany. The U.S. government said this was purely a German problem, that the U.S. would not intervene (as it was hoping to see the mark revalue against the dollar). Nixon was intensely interested in devaluing the U.S. dollar at this point. Germany at first bought dollars to defend the existing mark-dollar parity, but in the end relented and allowed the mark to revalue against the dollar. In August of 1971, Nixon announced that the U.S. gold window was closed, thus terminating altogether the Bretton Woods gold exchange mechanism, placing the global economy on a dollar standard. Nixon then imposed wage and price controls to bring inflation under control and stop pressure on the dollar. New exchange rates were set at the Smithsonian Conference in December of 1971. In the spring of 1973, the pound was forced to revalue and another run on the dollar began as a result of an upsurge in inflation after Nixon's wage and price controls were terminated. The dollar was devalued, but the run continued. In an act of self-preservation, the EEC countries decided to jointly float against the dollar, while maintaining the existing parities amongst themselves. This float against the dollar was the beginning of the global floating currency regime we have had ever since. The OPEC oil crisis came later in the year, in October of 1973, and was not a cause of the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system, but a response to that collapse. Oil contracts are fulfilled in U.S. dollars; if the dollar radically devalues, the value of oil revenues collapses even as their dollar value rises. Media accounts of the cause of the oil crisis were, of course, not accurate.

When Nixon closed the official U.S. gold window, ending the gold exchange mechanism of the Bretton Woods system, the dollar became an unbacked fiat currency which was at the same time the international reserve currency. The Bretton Woods gold exchange mechanism had been created in such a way as to make the U.S. dollar the privileged global currency by virtue of it being the only currency that would be exchanged for gold on sovereign demand. This was done because the U.S. came out of World War Two economically robust and apparently in a position to assume Britain's pre-World War One imperial mandate to regulate the global economy (which is to say maintain international liquidity). Other currencies would be exchanged for the dollar; the dollar would be exchanged for gold. This was different from the classical gold standard where any currency on the standard would be exchanged for gold whenever demanded by whomever made the demand, not just one currency, say, the pound -- and not just by a sovereign holding that currency. Since, under Bretton Woods, the U.S. dollar was the reserve currency by virtue of the fact that the U.S. dollar and only the U.S. dollar would be exchanged for gold on sovereign demand, the U.S. had to print enough dollars not only for domestic needs but also to maintain adequate global liquidity, particularly as the U.S. economy was the prime source of international liquidity in the immediate post-World War Two period: this was one thing the Marshall Plan was all about. The Bretton Woods system was predicated on the notion that the U.S. would act responsibly with the privileged status of its currency; that it would maintain a stable value of the U.S. dollar, the international reserve currency; that it would not, for instance, have an unpopular war and choose not to finance it by taxes, but by printing dollars with which to discharge its accumulating international obligations. So long as there was a gold exchange mechanism, there were fairly immediate consequences for abuse of the privilege of having the sole privileged currency: if the value of the dollar began to decrease relative to other currencies, sovereigns would demand gold at its fixed price, which would be very much to the disadvantage of the U.S. This is precisely what happened during the Vietnam War period. As the troubles mounted, the U.S. chose to continue the abuse of its privilege and its shirk of the responsibilities it had agreed to in co-designing and signing the articles of the IMF. This behavior led to collapse of the Bretton Woods system -- clearly by intent, as the U.S. began threatening in this direction as early as 1965, and this position was essayed in 1967 by Birnbaum (President of Standard Oil at the time) and in 1970 by Krause (a Brookings monetary theorist), the Birnbaum-Krause position becoming Nixon's policy. Since the U.S. dollar, by virtue of Bretton Woods, was well established as the international reserve currency, and would surely remain the principle international reserve asset so long as the U.S. maintained global preeminence, repudiating the Bretton Woods gold exchange mechanism would place the U.S. in the best of all possible worlds: license to abuse the privilege of its privileged currency with little in the way of constraints, and with no incumbent reciprocal responsibilities.

When you look at the whole history of this, the impossibility of the Special Drawing Right becoming an authentic international reserve asset like Unitas or Bancor (a reserve asset that is not simultaneously a vehicle currency), and the particulars of the contemporary global economic equation, it is not too difficult to see that m-logically-valued monetary units implemented from the bottom up constitute the only possible solution compatible with the prevailing and evolving techno-base. The human species most literally, and most certainly, will not survive much more prolongation of refusal to generalize the quantum mechanics of self-organizing processes into economic, political, and social life. Already, it is clear that a substantial percentage of that species is not going to make the involved transition.

Yes, by the term “non-self-identical number” I mean that a constant is a constant only by virtue of the fallacy definitions associated with traditional Western Aristotelian-Baconian-Boolean logic: e.g., “No A is not-A”; “The case is either A or not-A”. These fallacy definitions define and require selfsameness: selfsameness is the only notion of identity permitted. However, in orders of logical-value greater than 2, these particular fallacy definitions have no meaning whatsoever. In general terms, the notion “constant” is order-of-logical-value dependent. In orders of logical-value 3…m, the notion “constant” involves numbers that are not identical to themselves. What, in orders of logical-value 3…m, is regarded a “constant”, from the perspective of 2-valued logic is regarded a variable, because non-self-identical numbers are disallowed by the fallacy definitions establishing 2-valued logic.

In quantum mechanics, what Penrose OR (objective reduction) does is reduce the global, 3…m logically-framed, “constant”, non-self-identical numerical value of an integer, floating-point, real, imaginary, complex, hypercomplex, or ideal number to its constant, self-identical value as truncated under the fallacy definitions establishing 2-valued logic. Relative to the usual concepts of space and time, what, under 2-valued logic, is regarded a ponderable spatial or temporal separation, is simply the truncation of non-self-identical values of a number under 3…m-valued logics. The usual experience of space and time is the result of numerical truncation by OR in the CNS (central nervous system). As a result of OR, the truncated is the conscious; the non-truncated, the unconscious (speaking from the point of view of the ego complex). From what I have been able to gather regarding the theory of p-adic numbers, a similar truncation is involved, but without contextualizing the truncation operator relative to orders of logical-value (as is explicitly done in chronotopology with the notion of 3-fold operator-time).

With regard to quantum economies employing m-logically-valued monetary units, values of assets would be recorded with non-self-identical numbers. One purpose for invoking this logical property of numbers in monetary systematics is to allow currency parity calculations to be global yet simultaneously context dependent. Another purpose is to frame market processes such that local sustainable development indicators are compatible with global sustainable development indicators. Even shifting to alternative energy sources on the massive scale required cannot occur absent such innovative monetary concepts. Markets employing single-valued currencies cannot organize such a shift, and creating a global agency to oversee the shift would involve employing command economics on a global scale, a surefire failure.

But, yes again, I do agree that what I am talking about cannot be initiated from either the “top” or the “bottom” -- recognizing that what we currently are taught to think is the top may actually be the bottom of the barrel. Formation of m-logically-valued quantum economies cannot be carried out in the truncated either/or fashion of 2-logically-valued processes. Nor, in a related vein, am I missing the recognition that non-self-identical numbers are not to be disallowed as numbers numbering orders of m-valued logics. And I would even argue that this statement is one manner of expressing the nesting principle for arcane, internal, and external configurations of pristine cognition, which Herbert V. Guenther presents in his discussions of rDzogs-chen (Matrix of Meaning, Shambhala, 1984).

There seems to be very little in the way of actual functionality on this planet at the moment. This condition relates to fundamentals. Reading Prigogine's popular writings, for instance, one can see that every major juncture in his thought was an issue the cascade theory of tornado genesis encountered and developed an alternative answer to. These cascade theory alternatives are far more conceptually sophisticated (if not so elaborately mathematicized) than are the answers Prigogine came up with. Some years ago, it was possible to entertain doubts as to how things would play themselves out over these fundamental issues. Now, it seems to me, there can be no real doubts. There will be no rational resolution of these issues at all. There will be much killing with a nested hierarchy of causes resolving back to the fundamental issues. And after the killing frenzy, things will simply move in a different direction, as if none of the fundamentals had ever really been matters of conflicted behavior. It will all be handled on the unconscious level. After the killing frenzy, things related to the fundamentals will go in the m-logically-valued direction, as the nascent emergence of quantum computing is already indicating, but it is impossible to know what sort of form will be given those fundamentals. Much of that surely depends on what is left after the killing frenzy and what transpires with archetypal processes in the collective unconscious during the frenzy. As is not difficult to see, the m-logically-valued direction outlined can be formed for positive or negative uses -- just like anything else. What seems still to remain at issue is whether unconscious processes will create forms for negative or positive uses. If this assessment is correct, efficacious action is relative to the unconscious processes. Effects of such action are non-viewable. Such action, itself, is relatively non-viewable, for it largely involves bringing things into conscious clarity in one or a few conscious minds. If something can emerge into conscious clarity in one or a few minds, that event simultaneously is an effect and a cause (i.e., a synchronisity) of unconscious processes: whether or not it becomes viewable in social processes is largely irrelevant. This is not to advocate an increase in general consciousness on the part of one or a few minds, but an increase in conscious clarity with respect to the specific fundamentals at issue in the nested hierarchy of causes of the killing frenzy. Anyway, this is how I have come to think about it, and how I am attempting to use what little energy I have left after the timewaste imposed by present circumstances and other such entropic draw-downs.

The people with the financial resources, the institutional affiliations, the think-tank credentials who are doing the right things, fighting for the right causes, supporting the moral solutions are living in a fantasy world -- and these fantasies are as much an obstacle to survival of homo sapiens as are the fantasy-governed actions of the militaristic self-interest realists. George Soros wants a new issue of the IMF Special Drawing Right (SDR). Hazel Henderson wants a dollar-euro parity peg and narrow trading band. Henry C. K. Liu wants rejection of any reserve currency and immediate demand for payments on imports in the currency of the exporter, thus establishing a global multi-currency regime. One could look upon these three as steps toward a top-down implementation of a new global monetary system. But no such evolution will transpire; and even if it did, the fundamental problems giving rise to the need for a new system would not have been solved. An SDR issue is a crisis management tool, not a fundamentals resolver. Parity between a petrodollar and a petroeuro does not dissolve the fact that the oil production bell curve has peaked. A market organized global multi-currency regime -- without a reserve currency, therefore, with fiat currencies -- cannot organize the massive shifts in consumption patterns prerequisite to the required timely massive global shift to renewable energy sources. Pompously advocating such non-solutions with great displays of moral hubris is, over the long haul, a more destructive deception than touting as a casus belli presence of weapons of mass destruction when the actual impetus to war is maintenance of dollar hegemony by blocking emergence of a petroeuro and garnering the strategic resource for an eventual showdown. Why more destructive? Because the militarists sweep up collective negative emotions and channel them into destructive events, something that absolutely will happen in one way or another; while the moralists sweep up collective positive emotions and channel them into useless activities, something that is unnecessary and prevents real solutions from emerging or from being implemented.

I received a bit of inspiration about Milton's Friedman's inability to understand the notion of m-logically-valued monetary units from reading the New Yorker article (John Cassidy, “The Price Profit”, February 7, 2000) on F. A. von Hayek. There is quite a bit of von Hayek biography in there I was unaware of. I knew that he was at University of Chicago for a period, but didn't know details. After WWII, 1950, he arrived in Chicago from London and joined a group involving Michael Polanyi (The Tacit Dimension) and Hannah Arendt (The Human Condition) called the Committee on Social Thought. Hayek left London two years or so after the British Foreign Office's Information Research Department (IRD, associated with MI6) had been formed and about the time the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF, associated with the CIA) had congealed. Polanyi, like Denis de Rougemont (Love in the Western World), was a CCF mover. Both IRD and the CCF commissioned and/or secured translation and worldwide distribution of anticommunist texts. If these texts were taught in the classroom, all the better. MOON has a lot to say about Hayek's concept of the role of rules in self-organization and how de Rougemont's substitution of Agape for Eros diverts attention away from identity transparency (the fundamental driver of self-organization in quantum systems, if the probabilistic interpretation is rejected as dissimulation). I have heard detailed accounts of how American urban planning had it origins at University of Chicago in the immediate post-war period. Milton Friedman, apparently, arrived at University of Chicago in 1946. This place was a nexus of counter-quantum thought.

Hayek was not regarded as doing economics, and was viewed as something of an interloper. But you could almost say that Friedman took Hayek's ideas about price as the market processor and applied the notion to currency exchange, such that relative currency values are treated as currency market “prices” in the same self-organizing sense Hayek attributes to the function of price in the general market. Both men got their Nobel's on their work on the functions of price. Now, m-logically-valued monetary units are just about the most natural extension of Hayek's notion of price one could ever imagine. Maybe Friedman has some sort of mental block in this area! The connection between origins of m-logically-valued monetary units and origins of urban planning at University of Chicago seems almost uncanny to me in light of the content of the VirFut Q-Pro article. Not to mention that m-valued logic is an all-Polish creation! Emil Post was brought from Warsaw to New York City as a child, and the other main earlier creators and later developers were also from Warsaw, the primary developer being a woman, Helena Rasiowa, who came out of the Warsaw Ghetto at the end of WWII.

The only person I've personally known who has professional knowledge of m-valued logic is a fellow named Yasuda Yutaka. He is a graduate of a technical high school in Tokyo who was given an honorary Ph.D. from Tokyo University for his contributions to fuzzy logic: papers submitted to a Japanese journal out of the blue while he was working as a radio technician. He attended my public lecture at Tsukuba University on the superconductant DNA model and we sat up until 5 a.m. discussing m-valued logic. A few weeks later he was off to Columbia University to work on developing aspects of Post's thought. Unfortunately, he had never read G. Spencer Brown's Laws of Form, so he could not get the gist of what I was saying about Post's logic in relation to quantum theory. Anyway, that was 1990, and I learned enough from the conversation to become aware of how differently I had come to interpret Post's logics from those working professionally in the field.

Contemporary treatments of m-valued logic invalidate the “fallacy of undistributed middle”. This fallacy is a violation of “the case must be either A or not-A” where there can be nothing fuzzy in between. By making this traditional fallacy no longer a fallacy, m-valued logic made fuzzy logic legitimate: infinite shades of gray between A and not-A. But contemporary treatments of m-valued logic leave the “fallacy of contradiction” intact. This fallacy is a violation of “no A is not-A” where A is A and only A, not simultaneously something else. Retaining the fallacy of contradiction as legitimate prevents straightforward application of m-valued Polish logic to Schrödinger's Austrian wave-function and Hayek's Austrian notion of price! This certainly conforms to the counter-quantum consensus at post-war University of Chicago. Culturally speaking, anti-communism and counter-quantum thought went hand in hand: the human species may not survive the cognitive consequences of this conviviality. My interpretation of m-valued logic not only invalidates the fallacy of undistributed middle, but also the fallacy of contraction. Going behind Spencer Brown's notion of distinction, by which he proved Sheffer's postulates to Boolean algebra, to interpret logic relative to identity transparency and not truth-value, my interpretation of m-valued logic means that A can be absolutely not-A. An interpretation of this is animistic participation mystique, the basis of value in Stone Age economics.

Two observations can be made: (1) you can't organize self-organization; (2) social self-organization is not an end in itself. Organizational activities directed toward creating a self-organizing system are inherently self-defeating. This does not mean there is nothing to be done. In terms of doing, the psychological, social, economic, informatics, meta-referential, structural, and functional pre-requisites must be created. Yet, even if all these are fulfilled, there is no guarantee self-organization will transpire on an observable level of elaboration. Mere cooperation and voluntarism are not really self-organization; they are something far less: great success at “organizing the self-organization” of cooperation and voluntarism relative to special projects or in crisis situations will not sustain itself beyond the project or the situation -- if the pre-requisites are not fulfilled. How do we know that social self-organization is more than cooperation and voluntarism? Is there anything more to life, to organization of the human organism, for instance, than cooperation and voluntarism amongst its component processes?

Self-organization, in and of itself, is not necessarily good. Self-organization for what? is the question. To what end? Tumor cells self-organize. Slime mold self-organizes. If you are a tumor, self-organization of tumor cells is great; if you are the brain the tumor exists in, not so great. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi's discussions of the quantum biochemical parameters distinguishing between the proliferative, fermentative alpha state (persistence of which can lead to degenerative disease), and the electron-transport-mediated beta state (transitions to which being associated with ontogenesis) in living systems, if generalized, speak to the coupling of pre-requisites of self-organization with the purposive “for what” aspect of self-organization. Different arrays of pre-requisites give rise to different classes of self-organization: that of cancer or that of the ontogenetic development of the human fetus.

Onset of social self-organization also requires non-doing: ceasing all the psychological, social, politico-economic forms of habituated behavior quenching self-organization. To quench self-organization with such behaviors is to persist in a proliferative state, a cancerous condition of unmitigated growth. That is why I stay away from organizational activities as much as possible and focus my attention on meta-reference, Musculpt, m-logically-valued monetary units, and so on, all of which are required to fulfill the pre-requisites of social self-organization. If you look at the role of rules (invariant properties of which might be treated as pre-requisites and designated, in Japanese, as in MOON, kisoku no kata) in F. A. von Hayek's information model of the market price mechanism, it becomes apparent that Adolph Lowe's addition to the econometrician's tool box, i.e., adding “goal adequate behaviors” to initial conditions and behavior equations (On Economic Knowledge, M. E. Sharp, 1977), must, if they are to be market mediated, involve different classes of information in the price mechanism itself. Higher and lower price is a pretty limited notion of different classes, and, therefore, the von Hayek price (and, thus, the Friedman price in currency markets) is a fairly limited information processor operative in the market. What an m-logically-valued monetary unit allows is many different classes of price as market information processor, and, hence, such monetary units open up the capacity to market process a wide array of “goal adequate behaviors”, each of which can be locally specific: the whole planet doesn't have to abide by the single purpose, by the “for what”, of a very lineally-conceived processor: higher or lower price.

No, there has never before been any intimate detailed connection between homeopathy and monetary units in my thought, just a vague feeling for some poorly defined correspondence on the level of logical structure. No notion of homeopathic town planning. Now, however, I am simultaneously getting two connected insights: (1) the WAY the homeopath organizes the information he receives about the patient's march of symptomology through observation and questioning of the patient, and in seeking a relation of these symptoms to the corpus of homeopathic remedies, is in the FORM of the atmospheric cascade process leading to severe local storm genesis; (2) this first insight opens a way, suggests a methodology, by which the governing autopoietic operators in a self-organizing system can be identified and their state of pathology characterized, thus revealing the possibility of systematically seeking a constitutional remedy relative to the involved system. (1) above is called by the homeopath, the “repetorization” process. After mapping the history of symptom onset from the general to the particular, he is faced with an enormous amount of information, so he usually chooses three symptoms of different classes which he matches with remedies that give rise to similar symptoms. I see this as analogous to how the multiple scenarios strategic planner chooses several scenarios out of the myriad possible and works up a strategic plan based on those chosen, or even only one of them. Insight (1) suggests a different principle for choosing a remedy: the FORM of the whole symptom cascade.

Why the FORM? As explained so nicely by Vinton McCabe (Homeopathy, Healing, and You, N.Y.: St. Martin's Griffin, 1997), the most general symptoms are what are called “I am” symptoms. The patient says: I am afraid of the dark. The use of “I am” indicates that the patient has incorporated this symptom into his sense of identity; it is therefore more fundamental, more general, ontologically prior to the “I have” symptoms. The patient says: I have a deathly fear of dogs. This is a less general symptom, in that the patient has not incorporated it into his identity. Such considerations as these establish the hierarchy of the symptom cascade. The most general symptoms are associated with the properties of the patient's constitutional illness, from which the other more specific symptoms derive. Constitutional remedies are the most dilute, the most potentized, the most frequency-specific to the root cause of the patient's overall illness complex. Homeopathic cure is achieved only by the patient's perfectly configured constitutional remedy, which is called the “simillimum”.

“I am” symptoms are, to my way of thinking, indications of identity disequilibrium, the “primary error” leading to degenerative disease, to use the term of homeopath Richard Bach (the highly skilled bacteriologist who developed the Bach Flower Remedies in the 1930s); specific symptoms, “I have” symptoms, are the cascade effects of the root identity disequilibrium. Shift in the fundamental frequency response window of intra-neuronal DNA (which is the premier immunological signifier) leads to organic pathology in a particular pattern of tissue involvement, the organic pathology being the cascade effects of the initiating frequency shift which cascade through the total system. In homeopathy, the symptom is an indication of the attempt of the being to cure itself of a fundamental imbalance in vital force or energy, just as severe local storms are an indication of the atmosphere's attempt to mend an imbalance of energy-momentum on the synoptic (or general) scale.

Repertorization is to draw a portrait of the cascade effects of a unique particular case of identity disequilibrium. Homeopathic healing is in the exact reverse FORM of the march of symptom onset, the healing being from particular to general, and is equivalent to the reverse cascade -- which I understand as a series of (sometimes subclinical) autogenic brain discharges initiated by taking the homeopathic remedy. One can validly say, I am coming to believe -- viewed through the lens of our first two papers on homeopathy -- that the cascade of symptom onset involves Platonic amnesis, Penrose Objective Reduction, spontaneous localization; while the healing process involves Platonic anamnesis or spontaneous fusion. The constitutional effect of homeopathic remedies cannot be accounted for without the autogenic brain discharge being incorporated into the canonical equation. The overall FORM of the cascade of symptom onset is a read on the specific intra-neuronal DNA frequency shift involved in the given case of identity disequilibrium. I would observe that the notion of “identity deficit” described in Besty Chang's book entitled Industry of Identity Deficit and Cannibalization of Time Matrices (Victoria, B.C.: Trafford, 2001) is not far removed from what I here designate identity disequilibrium.

Since Special Forces medical training, I have not seen myself as a medical practitioner: truly, it's not actually in my personal temperament. But I can easily see myself working behind practitioners, and in a sense that has been happening off and on for over thirty years. The homeopath takes his repertorization and researches it relative to the “rubrics”, which are the series of listings of symptoms and the sublisted homeopathic remedies clinical experience has demonstrated similarity to. He seeks a remedy with similar symptom pattern to that exhibited by the patient (i.e., in “proving” a remedy on a healthy person, the remedy is seen to induce symptoms similar to that of the disease it can cure in the ill person). Having made a tentative “diagnosis”, which is to say having arrived at a likely candidate for the remedy most similar to the symptom array of the patient, the homeopath then inverts his methodology and goes to the Materia Medica, an encyclopedic listing of homeopathic remedies and the sublisted symptoms they produce when “proved” on healthy persons. In this fashion, he may arrive at a “differential diagnosis”, a judgment as to several remedies that may be of value to the patient secondary to his primary remedy. All of this is quite complex and involves intuitive processes of assessment, as there are timing, dose, levels of potency, and other variables involved in choice of treatment.

There have been attempts to computerize repetorization. Not having seen these computer programs, my guess is that they are based simply on list comparisons. The next step probably would be pattern recognition algorithms using artificial neural network programming, such as that discussed in the recent m-logically-valued monetary unit computer simulation funding proposal, and is also used in reading DNA sequences relative to specific product-development experimental requirements. But, on the basis of the above, I see a much more interesting possibility (perhaps developing on the backs of these two).

There is the observation aired in THE MOON OF HOA BINH that the atmosphere's equivalent potential temperature surfaces (constant entropy surfaces) look like brain scans. And that the FORM of a given such surface correlates specifically with a unique infrasound signature. And how this is the fundamental take-off point for a unification of the plastic arts with music, i.e., the foundational notion for providing Musculpt (music-sculpture) with a scientific basis, not merely creating a color organ like Scriabin did by simply intuitively proclaiming a correlation between a given musical note and a given color, or how Kandinski stated proclamations like: a triangle is always yellow. Consider the proposition that the cascade computer model of tornado genesis as it exists today on a PC is an analytical engine for producing a constant entropy surface configuration of the FORM of a repertorization of a patient's symptom complex cascade. Once arrived at, this homeopathic constant entropy surface would have a uniquely correlated frequency, waveform, and intensity signature which the computer could generate uniquely from the surface configuration. Now, via the ideas in the first homeopathy paper, the one presented in Colombo, that signature would match the frequency signature of the constitutional homeopathic remedy required by the patient to normalize the intra-neuronal DNA frequency response window shift responsible for the identity disequilibrium causing the patient's symptom cascade.

I think of this idea about how to computerize homeopathic repetorization as being functionally parallel, on the individual level, to what Vir-Fut Q-pro would be on the level of the socius, with the bioregional cultural and natural resources approach to multiple scenarios strategic planning being the functional equivalent of the homeopathic repetorization process. When applied to a town, say, the remedy would be a unique configuration of local sustainable development indicators (“overtone frequencies”) stacked on the local m-logically-valued exchange unit monetary base (the means of delivering the remedy).

In the last sentences to Thomas de Zengotita's recent Harper's article “Common Ground: Finding Our Way Back to the Enlightenment” (January, 2003), this postmodernist deconstructionist writer counsels the serious progressive to “… put down your Foucault. Take up your Voltaire.” This is typically confused and confusing postmodernist advice to anyone Zengotita hopes to recruit and commit to “ten years of library studies” so as to produce a new theoretical basis for progressive politics -- particularly given content of the body of the article, which argues that the core of deconstructionist progressivism is 18th century rationalist Enlightenment humanism. MOON's Derek Dillon, who put in a lot more than ten years of library studies, has long maintained exactly what Zengotita makes his central theme in this article -- deconstructionism has always been in support of core Enlightenment assumptions -- and for that reason Derek has just as long regarded Foucault's main contribution as resident in how well he was able to defend Voltaire's point of view under the guise of attacking that point of view. Your Voltaire cannot be taken up without retaining your Foucault.

Derek has always hated postmodernist deconstructionism, not because he is a defender of 18th century rationalism, and not because he dislikes the stylistics of black propaganda writing, but because deconstructionism was born, raised, and hopefully is presently expiring in acts of defending classical Enlightenment modes of comprehension against onslaught by the implications of various creative breakthroughs of understanding achieved in higher mathematics and physics, beginning in the 1820s (please do not confuse this with the 20th century). The single-valued binary Aristotlian-Baconian logic underlying Voltaire's 18th century Confucianism (he was a close student of Confucius' Analects) had been thoroughly deconstructed over the period of a century by 1921 when Emil Post's paper on m-valued-logics was published. Foucault's “other-same” binary Booleanisms, by way of deconstructing European rationalism, are overwhelmingly underwhelming by comparison to m-orders of logical-value interpreted relative to holographic identity transparency, not truth-value and not identity politics. The sole purpose of Foucault's other-same confabulations was to hide his head in the fog of historicism, thus concealing presence of the hairy-scary implications of m-valued logics, which utterly decimate Enlightenment modes of comprehension right down to the absolute atomistic core: presence of the individual on any and all levels of the abstraction-empathy activation continuum. Derek has yet to see even a reference to m-valued logics in the “obscure hermeneutical debate over the illusion of Presence”, to quote Zengotita, not to mention the illusions of persons, places, and things.

Wilhelm Worringer understood this, as exhibited in his Ph.D. dissertation of, when was it, 1905? It was Worringer's Abstraction and Empathy which inspired Kandinski's On the Spiritual in Art. And in Worringer's subsequent work on the aesthetic of the Middle Ages, Form in Gothic, the stacked monophonic melodies in Gothic polyphony are no example of single-valued other-same Enlightenment binary logic -- but they are an example of the Platonism which subsequently became rife in Abelian transcendental functions (1820s); the Riemann surface stack of complex-function sheets (1860s); cardinality of the proper subsets of a denumerable transfinite set (1870s); Axiom of Choice (1900); Postian m-valued logics (1921); the unmolested m-valued Schrödinger wave-function (for several months of 1925-6); Gödel numbers (mid-1930s); fiber bundle arithmetics (late 1960s); Sakharov's multisheet model of the universe (1968); the m-logically-valued monetary unit (early summer of 1968, revisited each decade since); surface as measure theory (early 1970s); and the fact that the boundary surface of a blackhole (and of a fractal drum: including the drum which is THE MOON OF HOA BINH) holographically contains all the information of the space it encloses (1990s).

From the perspective of Derek's Platonic, mathematically involutive, homeopathic, autogenic abreactive, miasmatic historiography, there is no significant difference to be seen between Zengotita's Enlightenment progressivism, which causes him to conflate mere “identification of each of us with all of us” with authentic m-logically-valued holographic identity transparency; Pat Buchanan's commitment to 17th and 18th century Cartesian-Newtonian Lockean-Anglo-Saxon values with an exclusivity only a mare in blinders could bestow; Foucault's other-same black propaganda effort on behalf of Voltaire's logic of The Black and the White; Harper's publishing a gung-ho article (February, 2003) on asteroids, comets and catastrophism without so much as a mention of Immanuel Velikovsky, if only to criticize him, in the same issue where Ben Franklin's Enlightenment uniformitarianism is eulogized. All this when the fact that the fundamental generative assumptions of Enlightenment thought (most specifically Newton's laws of motion) -- unmentioned by Zengotita -- have been metaphysically dead for neigh onto 200 years, and the derivative fact that the chronic clinging behavior exhibited in the persistent refusal to acknowledge that what is dead is dead is the essential thematic element of the miasm responsible for the present global conundrum. As it has been ever since the Franco-Prussian War! Just as semantic reduction is not identical to meaning in art, so word mongering is not necessarily word smithing.

And speaking of Voltaire's black and white, let's hear from Derek (p. 747, Vol. II, MOON) ridiculing David Z. Albert's Quantum Mechanics and Experience (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1992):

The values of a superposition do not occur sequentially in linear time; they are simultaneous always or they are not a superposition. Shall we be absolutely reductionistic about Cubism and say nobody-but-nobody experienced a Cubistic percept, that it was all mere stylistic play -- in spite of the art-physics synchronisity involved? Or shall 1/√2(|believes e white-on-black-black-on-white>_h|“black-on-white-white-on-black”>_m|black-on-white-white-on-black>_e) be seen as an entry into Alfred Jarry's world of percepts (as he was, in all likelihood, the one most responsible)? And then there is Kazimir Malevich's “White on White” to consider. What did Suprematism supercede? And have the art historian's dissimulated early 20th century art? The many-minds interpretation clearly (and, according to Derek Dillon, correctly) argues that compatibility and incompatibility of observables is a function of the identity of the observer -- which identity, Derek points out, is dependent upon the order of value of the logic habitually employed. Identity transparency is, of course, a property varying across the full range of orders of logical-value and associated classes of collective occasions of experience. Don't stumble, consider what identity transparency implies about self-other, subject-object relations. And do so with the awareness that m-values is to logic what skew-perpendicularity is to geometry, what non-self-identical numbers are to arithmetics-algebras-calculi. All of which for instance, are involved in the way Luneburg's “psychometric distance function” is used to consensually construct visual space, or how brain habituation processes eventually establish object constancy during enculturation of the child. Moreover, under many-minds it is argued that the different branches of the wave function can be aware of one another, whereas under many-worlds it is argued that this is disallowed by virtue of thermodynamic constraints of the Second Law. These constraints are simply the result of the linearity of dynamics and operators as given in the definition of a closed system evolving in first-order time. But no closed system has or ever will exist in nature! Hence, the fact of superposition; hence, the fact of multiply branched functions, where the branches exhibit identity transparency in degree according to the order of logical-value their calculus is subjected to. In consequence, the connecting principle which obtains in any given case is likewise an expression of the order of logical-value chosen. But physicists don't baaaalieve in no collective occasions of experience, now! in spite of the fact that the study of collective behavior has become a sub-discipline of physics.

And now we have Albert presenting us with “a systematic new account -- in the context of a Newtonian-Mechanical picture of the world -- of the ultimate origins of…”, to quote the advertising blurb for his new book (Time and Chance, Harvard U. Press, 2003) -- as if we had to be told that Albert would be elaborating a Newtonian view. “New account”, indeed. My God! No wonder guns are required to force feed the emerging global consensus.

I've been vaguely thinking about this issue -- relation of the behavioral syndrome you designate with the acronym WASP vis-à-vis what I designate with the term Cartesian-Newtonian -- for quite awhile. Now that you raise the issue specifically, the time seems to have come to try to unpack it. Certainly the two things are intimately related, maybe even two aspects of the same thing -- but clearly not exactly the same thing. Moreover, the WASPish behavioral syndrome cannot even be identical to Christian fundamentalism, as certainly Black Southern Baptists are not what are increasingly being called white nationalists (there are several recent academic books with “white nationalism” in the titles), though certainly these black Christians are Christian fundamentalists, while the behavioral syndrome you refer to clearly incorporates what is designated as white nationalism. But even an observation like this last cannot be passed over quickly, as one must ask how much Christian fundamentalism actually informs Southern Black Christian fundamentalism. Julie Dash's very well researched 1991 film Daughters of the Dust strongly suggests that residuals of African tribal animism motivate at least some behaviors seen as Southern Black Christian fundamentalism. In the film, one sees how any member of the extended familial group, or “congregation”, can become a shaman(ess)-for-a-day by suddenly falling into that state of spirit-mediating capability required to take a trance reading on the collective need. This is a cultural residue of a time before the earliest stages in evolution of role stratification, before raise of the specialized shaman (a period in human history of great interest to anyone promoting “spontaneous social order”). On the one hand, there is no greater anathema to Christian fundamentalism than is animism, as the first village massacres of the 1630s by Puritans so well illustrate. On the other, Protestant fundamentalism was born in a Renaissance rationalistic rebellion, called the Reformation, against the ultimate in specialized shamans: the Pope. In this regard, protestant fundamentalism could be regarded as a Tantric form of Christianity, except that this antiestablismentarianism was male instigated and male dominated (thereby retaining a strong antidisestablisment orientation) and the earlier Buddhist reformation was instigated but not dominated by females. While for the Christian fundamentalist there is no stigma attached to being possessed by the Holy Ghost, even to the point of becoming a roller, there most definitely is a very big problem in being possessed by any other spirit entity, such as that involved in the trance state depicted in Julie Dash's film (in the end, the girl appropriately chooses to hop on the back of a pony and ride off with a native American Indian).

In recent days, the more offensive aspects of the WASPish behavioral syndrome (Bushism) had its neocon precursor in Reaganism which was nurtured under McCarthy, Acheson, and (the “dull, duller, dullest”) Dulles (whose phlegmatic Christian fundamentalism had much to do with the relatively more sanguinary Christian fundamentalism of Syngman Rhee) -- not to mention Reagan's born-again mother Nelle, in the same way MacArthur's mother nurtured the General's behavioral syndrome (both fathers being in some sense “absent” -- which is very much a part of the Deist Christian transference mythos). Richard Hofstader wrote a book on this I would love to read, but haven't, entitled The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays (Vintage, 1967). Luckily, Frances FitzGerald discusses it at length in her book on Reagan, Way Out There in the Blue (Simon & Schuster, 2000). She talks about how “The American Everyman”, Reagan's persona -- surely only a WASP persona, not a Latino persona, a black persona, an Asian American persona, a Native American persona, and so on, therefore not really an authentic Everyman, but only a MiddleAmericaMiddleMan persona -- was identified with the paranoid prophet, a healthy dab of Elmer Gantry thrown in for good measure, proclaiming end-time apocalyptic doomsday, a doomsday if and only if the ancestral laws (brought down from the mountain) were not revered such that the demonic Evil Empire were not put down by SDI lightning bolts, and in the obverse case or the aftermath, a millenarian descent or Second Coming leading to the City of New Harmony (it being too late for a bucolic Jeffersonian new harmony in “our land”). The political persona in paranoid style is seen to oscillate in binary-digit fashion between pre-millennial paranoiac anxiety and post-millennial triumphant god-like high-indifference: one form of bi-polar personality disorder. Highly relevant here is a paper (this I have long ago read) by Richard Slotkin, “Dreams and Genocide: The American Myth of Regeneration Through Violence”, Journal of Popular Culture, Summer 1971.

Bi-polar disorders manifest in all sorts of ways, their being rooted in a fixation in logical-value. Consider the following from the April 5, 2003 issue of The Economist (“Dream Code”, p. 73). Discussing a European Physical Journal article on object-oriented software development for the quantum computers being R&Ded initially for military applications in encryption/cryptanalysis, and surely for SDI-type battle-stations and general battle management soon thereafter, the editors explain that:

The basis for existing “classical” computers is the binary digit, or “bit”, which can have a value of either 0 or 1. In a quantum computer, bits are replaced by “qu-bits” which are a “superposition” of states -- partially 0 and partially 1. It is this superposition that allows calculations to be performed in parallel. Measuring the value of a qubit causes it to collapse into one of the two classical bits, 0 or 1. In a well-organized quantum computation, that should not happen until it becomes necessary to find out what one of the values actually is.

Certainly the editors of The Economist are not to be blamed for this falsification that prevents development of actual quantum computers, the sort of computers that would be required for full-blown application of m-logically-valued monetary units (which The Economist's editorial staff decided not to air during the 1997-plus-plus period of the collapsing baht, an explication of which being repeatedly tendered from Saigon by Derek Dillon at that time), for the physicists themselves truly believe this account! Why MUST they believe something so patently and obviously false? Because they are living inside a bi-polar personality disorder, the WASPish behavioral syndrome, to use your designation. Were they to allow polygamous, uh polyandrous, I mean polytheistic, uh, m-logically-valued qubits, as opposed to single-valued binary qubits, they would be endorsing the mediumistic trance state of Julie Dash's daughter of dust, warm golden dust, a Borel set, a state of animistic identity transparency that never settles into either 0 or 1, but, through KNOWLEDGE THROUGH IDENTITY, reads the collectivity, the congregational need, the state-function. Such reading is not a self-identical state; it is a state of voluntary dissociation; the numbers and states involved are not selfsame, not a matter of isopathy; they involve orders of self-reference and nested states of self-similarity (therefore, being a matter of similars, are homeopathic, not allopathic). But the bi-polar-disordered physicist can't even deal with the full Christian circumstance -- any more than can the Christian fundamentalist, who is very much opposed to “primitive Christianity”. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is a three-valued logic of identity transparency (just as was the ancient pre-Incan Andean language Aymara), which cannot be formulated via any concatenation of a binary logic rooted in truth-value: read the literature on the Trinity. The logic of primitive Christianity was three-valued and that is why Christendom, which suppressed primitive Christianity in service to role stratification (requiring an absolute distinction between self and other only binary logic can confer), designated the “tritone” as the musical incarnation of the devil. All formal definitions of heresy in one way or another have related to this fundamental issue concerned with order of logical-value.

Were I not so tiresomely corrected, I would actually prefer to use the term Newtonian, rather than Cartesian-Newtonian, as, to me, the central issues here are Newtonian, and the Cartesian aspects are secondary and derivative: the core of the world picture being the physical theory. It goes back to the Greek “hylê”, to panhylism, hylê being universal substance (not matter), the root notion behind Homeric-and-earlier substantialism (which the modern logician regards an archaicizing fallacy: reification). Single-valued binary Aristotelian logic is post-Homeric. Hylê to me is in the form, the form of the m-logically-valued reference space, the universal out of which all substance devolutes under operations of operator-time (universal consciousness in its active aspect). What is regarded Chi, élan vital, the vital energy is to me, no energy, but form informing, an activation pattern, a logical lattice or superstring configuration on the reference space.

I am presently into another esoteric tome on homeopathy, the most fulsome embodiment of vitalism, and can see that this is something I inevitably had to do. This reading -- not quite the same as being a Swedenborgian reader, but similar -- is really a trek through my ancestral south central Pennsylvanian German ancestry, with gathering of further insight into what I turned my back upon and what I unknowingly retained. The church my mother regularly attended throughout her childhood, and in which I attended Sunday school and received the baptismal, was Evangelical Grace Reformed. The ministry is deep in my heritage. I remember in my childhood my aunts and uncles nostalgically pointing out as we drove by where the tent revivals had transpired in the 1930s, the old Grange camp being one such location. They knew every roly-poly back road. This was during the late 1940s and early 1950s, when I spent some time there as a child. At that time there was very little such activity. Revivalism began a resurgence in the early 1980s, and as my wife and I sat writing MOON we heard the exhortations echo through the early evening, most evenings. In the homeopathy texts, there is this glaze of 18th century Enlightenment rationalistic logic (taxonomic inductive thought) underlain by deep fundamentalist Christian commitments, reverence for the prophet (the founding fathers of homeopathy quoted reverentially), and fire-and-brimstone moralism couched in morbific notions like miasm and dyscrasia. The homeopathic parallels with Weimar-emergent autogenic training (with its account of spontaneous brain discharges) are transparently animistic German with all sorts of echoes: Gestalt psychology, reductive phenomenology, and German innovations in the structural theory of psychoanalysis, i.e., Heinz Hartmann's structures as automatized functions, devoluted logical configurations, that is. And, weirdly, there is a mastery of manipulating Christian fundamentalist eschatology of end-times Armageddon and post-millennial constitutional cure: same story, different setting, here applied to chronic disease.

My ideas about m-logically-valued monetary units could play well to the Second Great Awakening of the 1820s and 1830s (and the associated populism of free silver) out of which Evangelicalism sprang. But this whole area is not at all straight forward: the farmer's cooperatives, the Grange folk opposing the Eastern Establishment WASPs, those damn bankers with their gold mentality, were borrowing into lifelong debt for seed and grubbing hoes in a monetary environment filled with multiple private and public currencies, in the days before a federal currency, before a greenback as legal tender, and their collective action relative to free silver and banking structure set in motion a process that culminated in a national currency and the Federal Reserve Bank, both of which solidified power of the Eastern Establishment WASPs they opposed. Maybe free silver was all just a "Jacobinical plot conceived by the Bavarian Illuminati" a "sinister elite conspiracy against Christianity and republicanism" (to quote FitzGerald). And maybe what is happening today is just another loop of the same spiral!

The Economist certainly is an entertaining magazine and more and more I have had to just keep my peace whenever anyone asserts that it is a publication of MI6. The latest monetary gems come in a review (April 12, 2003, p. 74) of Thomas Schwartz's Lyndon Johnson and Europe: In the Shadow of Vietnam (Harvard U. Press, not surprisingly). The reviewer sympathetically recounts Schwartz's itemization of LBJ's accomplishments, to include the assertion that he “… promoted modernization of the outdated gold-based financial order…”. Later in the review, Charles de Gaulle is attacked because, during this period when LBJ was accomplishing his accomplishments, the non-accidental French leader “… tried to drain American gold reserves by trading dollars for gold.” Well, far be it from me to be the instigator of yet one more conspiracy theory, but in this case it is virtually impossible to imagine how the editors at Harvard U. Press and MI6 Journal could have arrived at common cause on such ludicrous historical falsifications if not by some conspiratorial mechanism.

Just as Sandinista organizational capabilities were nothing compared to those of the Vietnamese communists, so, even though UBL is clearly a logistics genius and strategy adept, AQ&A's subversion capabilities patently are nothing compared to those the Viet Cong possessed, no small measure of VC success being resident in the sophistication of their military and civilian proselytizing sections at each echelon of their administrative infrastructure -- whereas AQ&A clearly has not yet managed to significantly penetrate and subvert the security services, military services, and civil services of the Saudi, Egyptian, and Pakistani governments (the same can validly be said regarding the Tamil insurgency in Sri Lanka). Precipitous collapse of the GVN in 1975 was intimately involved with this issue, as was outcome of WWII in Europe, if we are to believe that Hitler's assistant, Martin Bormann, was for four years Stalin's spy, as Louis Kilzer would have us believe (Hitler's Traitor, Presidio, 2000).

Bull. The reasons cited by JFK idolizers to “prove” Kennedy would have pulled out of Viet Nam were simply preparatory to orchestrating removal of Diem and Nhu. Further, that the ICC's (International Control Commission: Saigon compound right across the street from the National Police compound) -- notably Poles -- assessment of the Diem government's negotiations with the North is to be accepted at face value is based upon total ignorance of what was happening to the NFLSVN at the time, an aspect of the war Seymour Hersh, for instance, never learned anything significant about (The Dark Side of Camelot, Little, Brown, 1997). The communists had been so successful in the South by mid-1963 they no longer needed a front organization and were well into the process of dismantling the NLF and shifting to a pre-governmental format (what they called by intentional misnomer “Autonomous Administrative Committees”: totally different from a front), a progressive organizational shift reversed by impact of the 1965 U.S. troop buildup, but finally achieved in aftermath of the hugely successful 1968 Tet offensive (preparation for which occasioned total transformation of the communist apparat in the South, allowing the NFLSVN to be progressively dismantled by the North). The fact that this front-to-pre-government organizational phase transition was seriously in motion by mid-1963 belies the notion that NVN seriously entertained coalition government as anything but a prelude to establishing their total control: they were too close to an outright win. This was not documented for US-GVN intelligence in 1963, but lavishly so later, as large caches of enemy documents containing detailed historical memory were captured and analyzed -- notably at POLOB, CICV and later SRA/MACV-J2 (examples of this analysis are to be found in the SRA Newsletters, at one time all on the shelf at the U.S. Army Center for Military History; more comprehensively, in our novel The Moon of Hoa Binh). Maybe a hundred years from now scholars will actually study the documentation, the nuts-and-bolts internal bureaucratic administrative documents (e.g., personnel transfer orders: that level of detail) of the Vietnamese communists.

You don't see the connection I make between homeopathy, trance states, and money? My gosh, that is very surprising! I would have thought the connection so obvious that virtually no one could have missed it. Maybe I should go further into the central core of the connection by saying a bit about what Jean Gebser calls the “concretion of time” and the de-“haptification of space” such that “structures are rendered transparent” by “an agent of the critical or acute energy of time” (The Ever-Present Origin, Athens: Ohio U. Press, 1985, pp. 22-27). Not interested? Don't think such explication will clarify the connection? Not notions that ever will be needed by your average bank manager? Now, now. Please don't jump to unwarranted conclusions right here at the start. Everything I will have to say will be very immediate, very sensory, very artsy -- not intellectual at all. It will call on how much of a touchy-feely person you are, not on intellectual virtuosity. I will be doing my very best to describe given percepts and propriocepts, and only given percepts and propriocepts (i.e., direct awareness of outer and inner sensory objects).

Let's begin with the trance state, a rather ordinary trance state, one like that mediated by Julie Dash's daughter of dust… Okay, okay. I was going to start out with time, but we can start with “haptification” if you wish. “Haptic” comes from Greek and means “to touch”. “Haptification” means to be rendered into the terms of touch. Rub the tip of your long finger over that of your thumb. What does that mean? Money. It's a gesture that's become a near-universal modern signifier of money. According to Gebser, ever since 1500 Western man's experience of space has become more and more tied to his sense of touch, and this very immediate sensory transmogrification has led to “hypertrophy of the ego”, an excessive development or exaggerated growth of the ego-function. Now, obviously, in order to enter a trance state, even a rather ordinary trance state like that of the daughter of dust, one must somehow relinquish egoic hypertrophy, which, according to Gebser's observation, would minimally involve a de-haptification of the experience of space… Yes, I know, I know most of us do not feel that we are always touching space. Raise your hand; move your fingers. Are you touching space? No. Those fingers just go right through it, you can't touch it because it's not there… Well, if it's not there, where is it then? The fact that we never ask that question, at least on a day-to-day, moment-to-moment basis, is an indication of the haptification of space in our experience: that we experience what we define as nothing as “being there” is an indication of the degree to which space has been tacitly assimilated to our sense of touch. The sense of being there that nothing has is haptification, and Gebser expertly argues that nothing wasn't there very well for Westerners before 1500. What does it mean for nothing not to be there? How would anyone know where they were if nothing weren't there? In trance induction, what happens immediately, in perception and proprioception, when space undergoes de-haptification? What is the direct experience of it in immediacy?

You are sitting there reading this discourse surrounded by a lot of nothing with “being there” attributes conferred by your ego-function. Now, instead of just attending to the words on the screen, ask yourself where the “your” of your ego-function is. Let the words on the screen go a bit blurry and just sense your “your” as best you can. What happens? You may not notice it without some practice, but the first thing that happens is that the small muscles of your face lose some of their normal tension. There is an ever-so-subtle cooling sensation (almost unnoticeable) at the crown of the head. Though you have not changed position and are the same distance from the screen as before, you do not “feel the sense” of that distance as you felt it before. Though the screen almost seems farther away because you are now more immediately (not just tacitly) aware of yourself sitting in the chair, somehow you “feel less distant” from the screen, which strangely seems more of a presence in its own right than before you began trying to sense your “your”. All of this is ever so subtle. Keep trying to sense the “your” of your ego-function, the “being there” of yourself. When your sensory engagement with your “your” is immediate and not merely tacitly given, there is more presence in any object of your awareness, inner or outer. This is not intellectual! You “feel the sense” of the presence in the “being there” of space you attribute to what you define as nothing. You just “felt” it! And as you are increasingly successful at sensing your “your”, there is a growing sense that this “your” is “looking” at “you” -- you as your body. Or is that “you” your body? The “your” of yourself is sensed as the “my” of “my body”, not that body. You directly sense that you are not your body, but something quite distinct from it. Try to sense the “your” of yourself as your body. Try, try, try. What happens in your immediate awareness? Try, really try. Can you do it? When you try to sense your “your” and the cool sensation develops at the crown of the head, you feel your “your” as a bit above and behind that crown. That's where it is when you first sense your “your”; there and nowhere else. There is no possibility of staying in your body if you try to be aware of yourself; the only way you can stay in your body is by not being aware of the “your” of yourself. This is not intellectual! It is all about what you directly experience at any ever-present right-now. Being aware of the “your” of yourself is voluntary dissociation (which is rescission of egoic hypertrophy through the de-haptification of space). Refusal to dissociate, fear of dissociation, immediately quenches de-haptification of space. If you become really good at being aware of your “your”, a time will come when the only way you can stay in your body is if you try.

But before you get that good, you will be able to reach out and tap space with the knuckle of your bent long finger, just as you can now reach out and tap the screen you are reading from. Haptification of space is not something you can do by yourself; everybody in a culture has to do it, if it is to be done at all. But you yourself alone can make some progress at spatial de-haptification, and when you make such progress at a certain level of achievement the collective rendering of space into the terms of touch will stop being tacitly given to you and will “appear” before your you: you will be able to “see” the collective haptification as if it were a Plexiglas wall, so real you could tap it, between the “your” of yourself and the objects of your perception. This is directly given to visual awareness, with all the reality value of the glass sitting on your desk. Psychiatrists call this individual direct perception of the artifact (Plexiglas wall) of collective spatial haptification “derealization”, because they take hypertrophy of the ego as normal and place their own awareness in that hypertrophy.

But you can only tap the spatial touch tacitly given by collective haptification if you can find a way to get ever-present at some right-now, which is a “concretion of time”. Spatial de-haptification and temporal concretion occur together, so there is no need to worry about how to get one to cause the other. Gebser says: “… time has us [we don't have it] because we are not yet aware of its entire reality” (p. 22). Now, I don’t quite agree with Gebser as to what this “entire reality” is (as I think time is a 3-fold m-logically-valued topological operator -- which is no part of his notion), but I do know for certain that Gebser got a great deal more of that reality than have contemporary physicists. Gebser defines the “concretion of time” as an “emergent transparency of time” (p. 27). “Emergent” here is not relative to nature, but to the hypertrophic ego. So, in repeated practice of being aware of the “your” of yourself -- repeated at regular intervals (which is another issue related to both time and space) -- when the “my” of “my body” becomes the “my” of the “my” of “my body” into infinite regress, as it inevitably will, and that “your” of yourself gets directly sensed as “deeper and deeper” above and behind the coolness on the crown of the head, not only does the computer screen take on the feeling of a personal presence because the “your” of yourself is no longer tacitly given by the spatially haptifying collectivity but given in immediacy by success of the efforts to maintain awareness, time slows down. And the more time slows down, the more ever-present is the “your” of yourself at any right-now. How do you know? Because things begin more and more to transpire in slow motion. No, you don't see things with your eyes going slower and slower. What you see is collectively given. Just as in spatial de-haptification you directly felt the sense of the “being there” of nothing undergo a qualitative change, directly with your senses, not as an intellectual theory, so, in concretion of time you directly feel the sense of motion undergo a qualitative change. Things “feel” slower because your you is processing faster. Your eyes see what they have always seen (the way this would be different is if everybody engaged in temporal concretion), but the associated meaning is qualitatively different such that the “your” of yourself feels elegant while everything around you feels slow. And this can become more and more and more the case until everything “feels” stopped (though what you see is what you have always seen). Being in “feels stopped” is being in some ever-present right-now.

Okay, you're right, that's not quite right. That's just what happens in the beginning of the process of the concretion of time. There is a stage in time concretion equivalent to the stage of spatial de-haptification wherein the Plexiglas wall artifact “appears”. At that stage, what you see does change. You get to see the artifact of collective de-concretion of time (which has grown and grown in the West ever since the birth of linear-perspective began the process of spatializing time) along with the artifact of spatial haptification. What you see is what Derek Dillon in MOON calls a “psycho-ideograph”. “Structures are rendered transparent” in the “transparency of time” (to use Gebser's words) because “identity transparency” (to use Derek Dillon's words) has been momentarily attained at some ever-present right-now. Wap! Seen in the visual field, with all the reality value of the glass sitting on your desk, is a portrait of the devoluted essence of the object of perception. It's just there for an instant, a flicker, only so long as everything “feels stopped”. It can't be there longer as long as the collectivity engages in de-concretion of time. But it's there! What does it look like this “portrait of an essence”, this eidolon, this “ghost of a flea” (to quote William Blake)? Humph! Portrait of an essence! I know that's what you were thinking. It depends on the object of perception you are looking at, and the state of that object. If the object of perception is a human person, then what you see is very much like an analytical Cubist image, very much like what Picasso and Braque painted in their portraits. The difference being that, in the real thing, not so intensively in the paintings, the distortions of feature and color that arise as a result of the superimposition of time-frames in de-haptified pictorial space, in what painter Rice Pereira called “the layered transparent”, reveal in utterly unmistakable and vivid terms the essence of the inner state of that person. What is seen is the person m-logically-valued, the person with his wave-function not objectively reduced by collective spatial haptification and temporal de-concretion to the ego-function's 0 or 1.

Julie Dash's daughter of dust enters this “layered transparent” via trance induction, not practiced awareness of the “her” of herself, and the object of her inner perception is the personhood of the corpus, the extended family, the group, the congregation. She reads the collective need as a single image (possibly a single sounded-image) met with while everything “feels stopped”, an image fraught with meaning unmistakable and vivid, which she embraces through knowledge through identity, through m-logically-valued identity transparency. The repertorization process used by the homeopath is a means to simulate the superimposition of time-frames in taking a portrait of the patient's prevailing total state so as to arrive at the simillimum corresponding to the patient's “psycho-ideograph”, his constitutional type with superimposed miasms and dyscrasias impastoed throughout a lifetime, over generations, which the homeopath must deconstruct analytically and via his remedies in much the same way that the analytical Cubist image was brought up layer upon layer. Multiple scenarios strategic planning as it would be handled with VirFut Q-Pro would be the quantum autopoionomy equivalent to the homeopath's repertorization process, the object of which would be to find the monetary “simillimum”, the m-logically-valued purchasing power parity “potentization” required to stack those sustainable development and quality of life indicators on the local currency base demanded by the prevailing total local system-state. M-logically-valued monetary units will de-haptify lucre, institute a concretion of transaction time, take the thumb off the tip of the middle finger, return identity exchange to commodity exchange, and put empathy back into the sacred cloth of gifting behaviors where “interest” had its origins in Stone Age economics.

Had I the wherewithal to actually read in the technical literature of m-valued logic, it is questionable as to how much such reading I would even then do. Currently, I skim a great deal, but little more than that. Look. All the technical skills are out there to immediately do what I am proposing. Much of what I am talking about has on a technical level, in fact, already been done. And much of it is U.S. military funded, e.g., optical pattern recognition algorithms employing artificial neural networks to learn separation of image-information superimpositions treated as m-valued. Inversion of this is one way to learn construction of m-logically-valued Hilbert space, and is very close to what for thirty-five years I have been calling Musculpt. The problem is in interpretation and intent of application of these logics. In the above-given example, the intent is to create a better Third World Strategic Bombing Survey. I have nothing against fuzzy logic, probability logic, frequency interpretations, neutrosophic interpretation, infinite m-valued logics, modal logics. Fine. Explore all this in great detail. But most of it is to my mind a form of psychological regression. They (Motorola and Intel, for instance) are already making chips with m-valued logic gates (i.e., with m-stable states, not only 0 and 1) and have been studying error correction problematics relative to such m-gated chips for some time (in spite of the fact that The Economist clearly doesn't seem to know anything about the area). Most interesting to me are signal changing errors called “literal window shifts” in multi-valued logic circuits processing m-valued signals. How much of this presently exists other than on paper, I do not know. The mathematics of these window-shift faults is so close to that of our superconductant DNA model as to be staggering (though, perhaps, on reflection, this should not be too surprising). Literal window shifts in DNA are modifications of immune signifiers and when such frequency response window shifts are inherited, they are what the homeopath calls a “miasm”. In bacteria and viruses, literal window shifts, alter pathogenicity by allowing the vector relative transparency to host immune responses, thus altering the balance of vector virulence versus host immune competency (which balance is not a monotonic function of killer T-cell titers in the host, as both vector and host DNA-RNA literal window shifts are occurring). Thus does a SARS or an HIV break through anti-viral immunity to become established in a population corpus with the requisite inherited literal window shift. This is not part of consensus medicine because the Great Recombiners don't know about the fact that the quantum wave properties of nucleotide pair sequences are m-logically-valued immune signifiers. Eventually, though, there likely will be applications to the DNA micro-array chips used in genomic sequencing and possibly even those used for proteomic studies. And when military-funded gets out of this line of work, the imaging studies mentioned above might even yield a way to lithographically print m-gated micro-arrays that frequency lock with target sequences. The right way to study emergent disease vectors! The problem is to get people to look at m-valued logics relative to “identity transparency”. Use that term and all they can see is ant-swarm Asian animism! I was arguing this theme at beer parties to Cornell biochemists in 1977. One place m-valued error correction problematics is being studied especially intensively is in Russia, particularly at the Belarussian State University Informatics and Radioelectronics Institute (see, for instance, Eurogen97). The interest at Motorola and Intel is in increased speed by parallel binary processing. This intent of application is what I call an example of psychological regression: it is how technology comes to be a real-world embodiment of the projective identification engaged in by the group mind, which is a very potent form of the collective psychopathology involved in alteration of the electromagnetic properties of autogenic brain discharges: one way literal window shifts are induced in neuronal DNA of the host population corpus.

I would, even given the wherewithal, not be reading deeply into the contemporary literature of m-valued logics because all the prevailing “folkloric” interpretations assume validity of the fallacy of contradiction: every A must not be not-A. Retention of this fallacy is tantamount to conservation of the notion of truth-value, while such a conservation law is too derivative a concept for most needed contemporary applications. Therefore much of the literature involves irrelevant discussion of paradox which simply produces one or another kind of headache. Post interpreted m-valued logics to two-valued logic. Lukasiewicz very early set the stage for evolution of fuzzy logic by rejecting the fallacy of undistributed middle when interpreting m-logical-values as the real numbers between 0 and 1. Probability logic bifurcates into Carnapian and Reichenbachian: Carnap's interpretation being positivistic and linguistic, that is, concerning events and concerning sentences both evaluated on inductive criteria; while Reichenbach offers a frequency interpretation based on statistical probability. All of these array m-logical-values, however they are interpreted, between 0 and 1. Neutrosophic logic focuses its attention on the interval 0,1 and becomes a transcendental logic such that this interval is treated not as the real numbers but as a continuum (see, for instance, neutlog text). Reichenbach's notion is in some respects the most interesting because he explicitly attempts to reduce the topology of probability to identity via frequency (see, for instance, the excellent short essay LvovWarsaw). This is more interesting than neutrosophic logic in that even though neutlog is transcendental it retains the fallacy of contradiction and thus tends to treat all m-valuedness as gradation between opposites (something/nothing; good/bad; yin/yang; in/out; on/off; and so on): A is never absolutely not-A. Reichenbach's insight is greatest because he realizes the centrality and fundamentalness of the notion of identity: he may even have crossed the Rubicon on realization that truth-value is derivative of identity in logic (though he appears never to have formalized this). But his approach to the m-logically-valued is actually three-valued (just as Post's was two-valued) insofar as it treats the triad probability, frequency, and identity as the basis of such logics. Lah-dee-dah! What he didn't see is that it isn't a question of probability and you don't focus on identity, but on “identity transparency”: the frequency regime is the domain of identity topologies, none of which in orders of _mT_m greater than ₁T₂, being non-orientable, are bounded by 0 and 1. The m-logically-valued unbound! “A is absolutely not-A” is not a paradox in orders of _mT_m greater than ₁T₂. “Paradox”, as we understand that word, is ₁T₂-logic specific. Whether this is evential, sentential, phenomenial, transcendtial, or merely experiential is not a matter of great moment, because it just simply is in the Is-ness of the case (at least for those who have engaged in spatial dehaptification and temporal concretion): Thou art That.

Yes, my continued commitment to aspirations of the pre-WWII Unified Science Movement bespeaks much about my overall orientation. It would be accurate to say that Vedic idealism is to Platonism as Musculpt is to logical positivism (the bridge between Musculpt and Wittgenstein being the tokens G. Spencer Brown employed to prove Sheffer's postulates for Boolean algebra in his Laws of Form). In 1970, Jack Waldron brought my attention to the raw-silk-bound Collected Works of Sri Aurobindo -- who had studied the relationship of Vedic idealism to Platonism while a scholar of ancient Greek at Cambridge -- as he worked on a Ph.D. in Indic philosophy at University of Washington and was being required to study linguistic philosophy, Wittgenstein in particular, before being allowed to academically immerse himself in Indic thought. I spent over fifty-percent of my then total net worth to purchase from the Asia Society a copy of Aurobindo's twenty-plus volumes. I finished the last of these while working as an assistant to metal sculptor Gary Wojcik, a consummate craftsman/perfectionist committed to a minimalist aesthetic, who at the time was fascinated with plans and photographs of the house Wittgenstein designed for himself under inspiration of architect Adolf Loos. Industrial metal-sash windows and the lot! Inner Musculpt, it must be noted, if exteriorized as holographic sounded-forms, would be no mere Fregean concept-script or Brouwerian metalanguage, even if “as if axioooomatized” as in MOON. This is because, unlike perspectives cultivated in the Vienna Circle -- by Rudolph Carnap in particular, perhaps: his reductive ₁T₂ characterization of logical syntax -- the notion of sensory experience tacitly assumed is not, like in logical positivism, restricted to that available only in the normal state of consciousness. Nor must one, as Wittgenstein proclaimed as he succumbed to what he later designated “philosophical disease”, refrain from communicating about non-normative sensory experience even if, as Wittgenstein clearly recognized, one must pass over it in VERBAL silence, for that communication can transpire in the coloristic sonic-visioning universal FORM LANUGAGE of an exteriorized inner Musculpt-as-mathematical-notation. If time is relative to the reference frame the clock is attached to, if space is relative to the reference frame consensually designated at rest, then sensory registration of the reading of the clock and the ruler can only be consensuated under a shared given order of logical-value, the given such order corresponding to an essential attribute of the observer-state (of consciousness) in question. Synchronization of clocks within clocks within clocks -- the essence of physiological-temperature superconductivity of DNA -- is fundamentally a problem in logic; other quantum-relativistic problems are ontologically derivative: whys and wherefores of operator-time (the agent of synchronization, as described in the canonical equation of our 1979 superconductant DNA model). Coherent waves produced by intranuclear neuronal superconductant DNA being responsible generator of inner Musculpt. If Brown's tokens bridge Wittgenstein and Musculpt, then the numbering of Gödel numbers bridges logical positivism and the positivism (of non-normative sensory perception) underlying Vedic idealism as mapped on the base-state of Tzog-chen. It must be remembered that everything the Vienna Circle did came not long after m-valued logics were rigorously codified by two Poles and Schrödinger wrote his time-independent wave equation while practicing Tantric sexual yoga in a nearby mountain cabin. The Vienna Circle not only ignored work of the Poles; it was in high back-reaction against (consciously articulated or no) implications of m-valued logics -- and this back-reaction was fundamentally involved in origins of the Second World War (with its unconscious displacement to the Jewish question of issues threatening validity of logical atomism). One of the main reasons for implementing m-logically-valued monetary units is to put an end to such displacements-via-mass-warfare. The irony is, Jewish intellectuals -- Einstein, a foremost example -- being members of a secularized Rabbinate, are hugely antagonistic to anything remotely suggestive of the Cabalistic identity transparency carried by m-logical values. So, on the one hand, the Jewish intellectuals of the period were no actual threat; while, on the other, they contributed enormously to suppression of the multivalue leading to the involved psychological displacement. For all we know, Hitler and Wittgenstein cooked the whole thing up while cutting classes together. And in the postwar period, George Soros, while a student of Karl Popper who was antagonistic to Wittgensteinian perspectives, in course of formulating his strategic approach to money market speculation, interpreted the self-referential propositions underlying m-valued logics in such a way as to dissipate threat of Cabalistic identity transparency. And, of course, m-logically-valued monetary units are of no interest to those wagering the money markets. So fair the processes of collective psychological displacement.

---

Contact the page editor

Return to:

•Top

•Homepage