From there everything else is near trivial to demonstrate. — boethius

Sir, you exaggerate!

I haven't finished a first skim, but it is a heroic effort. I find myself largely in agreement with your conclusions, though I arrive at them in other ways sometimes. Give me a couple of days to read more slowly, and have a think, and I will come back with some questions and thoughts.

Meanwhile, I think you could do with a bit of editing here and there - Your English is excellent but there are one or two places where the meaning could be more clear. I could make some suggestions on that level at some stage if you would like.

First the commitment to non-contradiction, to both avoid contradicting oneself in belief — boethius

Do you mean blocking the ability to see both sides of an issue? Give some examples please. I don't read lengthy essays.

Do you mean blocking the ability to see both sides of an issue? Give some examples please. I don't read lengthy essays. — jgill

If I understand correctly you are a mathematician, so the meaning of avoiding contradiction here is just in the basic sense as appears in mathematics of not believing something and it's negation simultaneously.

In my belief system here this principle is assumed to be true. Of course, it can't be proven as the principle of non contradiction needs to be assumed to prove anything.

Which is of course a pretty common, if not standard, starting point for logic and philosophizing. Where I then depart this common starting point is arguing that this principle of non contradiction is an ethical commitment. It's functionally a should statement, "I shouldn't contradict myself", and requires some effort to implement (i.e. putting in the effort to resolve contradictions when one realizes, intuits or then has some measure of doubt about things).

Someone with your skills I think can easily see this argument as the principle of non-contradiction reducing the configuration space of acceptable actions and beliefs (to remove contradictory ones) and an ethical theory meaning any restricting of this space whatsoever.

Point of all of this is to "boot-up", so to speak, an ethical purpose which is to avoid contradiction and search for the truth. Finding truth is then further restriction on all possible actions and beliefs. Again, the search for truth is a pretty common, if not standard, starting point for philosophical enquiry, but what seems obvious to me, but does not seem standard and common, is that it is clearly an ethical doctrine.

This whole point of view is summarized (for someone with your advanced knowledge of logic) by viewing is statements as also should statements.

If I argue to you that something "is" I am at the same time arguing that "you should believe it".

Sir, you exaggerate! — unenlightened

I'm just trying to keep with the tradition set forth by Kant and Wittgenstein and most of our philosophical forebears of continuously claiming that everything argued is both trivially true and they've also essentially completed the philosophical project for all intents and purposes. I'm pretty traditional at the end of the day (using conventional languages rather than made up ones and doing many conventional things like sitting rather than standing on chairs).

I haven't finished a first skim, but it is a heroic effort. I find myself largely in agreement with your conclusions, though I arrive at them in other ways sometimes. Give me a couple of days to read more slowly, and have a think, and I will come back with some questions and thoughts. — unenlightened

I am deeply humbled by your interest.

And yes, nearly all of my conclusions are really common beliefs, that mostly go without needing to argue, such as "avoid contradiction" and "don't torture children for fun", and the point of the work is mainly to answer why exactly do I believe such things.

The point is not so much that others, such as yourself, would need to believe the have the same philosophical foundation to arrive at the same conclusions, but could perhaps appreciate that I have mine and you have yours. "Feeling strongly these are good things" in a spiritual sense I would view as equally legitimate foundation for things like don't murder children for fun.

An analogy would be that you don't need set theory or category theory or some other logical foundation for numbers in order to count, and you can also argue that counting is what's fundamental and you can't actually do any logic at all without counting to begin with (how do you count braces to be sure squiggly brackets are closed if you don't know how to count yet?), so these foundations of numbers and counting are actually going in a circle (in this case we start with the idea we shouldn't torture babies to death for fun and then get back to the same place).

So criticism from this sort of angle I would view as perfectly fair.

That being said, having a logical foundation for counting and numbers, such as set theory, we can both appreciate that such things do exist but they are also needed to solve certain complicated problems (far beyond addition and multiplication of finite numbers).

For my purposes in The Cromulomicon, these certain complicated things are political coalition building.

I have my beliefs set out here and you have similar beliefs for different reasons, can we therefore form a coalition? To what end and to what extent.

Meanwhile, I think you could do with a bit of editing here and there - Your English is excellent but there are one or two places where the meaning could be more clear. I could make some suggestions on that level at some stage if you would like. — unenlightened

Again thanks for appreciation and definitely there's a lot of mistakes.

I originally published this essay in a rush because I discovered I had all this international money laundering evidence and believed I could be murdered at anytime.

Feel very welcome to send me corrections either just posting here, maybe in big blocks, or PM me if you think it would just clutter the space here.

Fixing all the mistakes is on my list of things to do.