by Nathan Coppedge page
Part I. Effective-Meaning: Objective-Time
�1.b. Iteration 6, The Game-Intellectual World page 6
Preface
Summary
Part 1a.
Iteration 1
Iteration 2
Iteration 3
Iteration 4
Part 1b.
Iteration 5
Iteration 6
PART II.
(incomplete)
PART III.
(outline)
PART IV.
(outline)
NOTES
1. Objective Proof is attained by power and arbitrary results, Logic creates Objective-Language and Objective results, �no personal results� is a consequence of powerlessness or no results (no experimentation), and Scientist-Fate and the Effective World create subjective results.
2. Objective Proof is attained by subjective results, Logic creates power and arbitrary results, �no personal results� is a consequence of Objective-Language and Objective results, and Scientist-Fate and the Effective World create powerlessness and no results.
3. Objective Proof is attained by powerlessness and no results, Logic creates subjective results, �no personal results� is a consequence of power and arbitrary results, and Scientist-Fate and the Effective World create Objective-Language and Objective results.
4. Objective Proof is attained by Objective-Language and Objective results, Logic creates powerlessness and no results, �no personal results� is a consequence of subjective results, and Scientist-Fate and the Effective World create power and arbitrary results.
In the first case the scientist is looking for objective results, and finds them through logic. In the second case the scientist is looking for results that do not mesh well with his language vis-�-vis the history of experimentation; in other words, someone else has made an objective claim, and in that context the scientist in question is hindered from arriving at any kind of compatible theory. In the third case the being in question is lacking in either the Scientist-Fate/Effective World end, or in the Objective-Language/Objective results end�very possibly both. Or the scientist doesn�t understand that he is the one being tested. In the fourth case the scientist�s logic is either too strong or too weak for the problem at hand; the language guides him to separate conclusions than the ones he originally sought out. So we can remove the third and fourth options, as they are cases in which the being in question is not a scientist; he may be using a different conceptual framework instead of this one. We will still allow that there may be ways for the separate systems to overlap. In fact, we are relying on it. Now we have a second chart to represent this more contextual understanding.
Apologies to past visitors for the confusion at this point. Each of the four points of the system is being developed separately, in spite of the linear format of the publication.
Next is the Game-Emotional world.
NEXT
Philosophy and Writing Main Menu