[This reply to a blog entry at the website below is being posted here because
the blog reply software truncates at 3000 words. --Paul]

In "Reaching From The Margin: Why the 'KISS Principle' is Just Plain
Wrong" at:
http://www.functionalisminaction.com/2007/07/reaching-from-margin-why-kiss-princ\
iple.html
IConrad wrote:

> A recent commentor on my blog, one Kitty Antonik Wakfer, ... also
> brought up the work of her husband, Paul: "Social Meta-Needs: A New
> Basis for Optimal Interaction". This is a clearly well-thought out
> and perhaps well-parsed essay. And in context, wholly appropriate:
> while I have not yet had the time to read through the entirety of
> the essay in the manner it deserves, I am certainly someone whom has
> the interest and am of the appropriate "target audience". So no
> problems there. However, what does this have to do with the debate
> of how to get the message out?
>
> It seems that at the moment, that essay -- like so many others out
> there -- simply cannot be parsed.

It is not clear just what you mean by the use of the word "parsed"
here, particularly when above you wrote that the essay was "perhaps
well-parsed". Have you, at this point, arrived at a definite
conclusion related to the "perhaps"?
In any case as my first point of comment, I want to question your
usage of the word "parsed". Webster's Third New International
Dictionary, Unabridged . Merriam-Webster, 2002.
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (31 Jul. 2007) contains only two
meanings for this word:

1 a : to resolve (as a sentence) into component parts of speech and
describe them grammatically b : to describe (as a word) grammatically
by stating the part of speech and explaining the inflection and
syntactical relationships
2 : to examine in a minute way : analyze critically : ANATOMIZE 2,
DISSECT 2 b <parse problems and solutions -- C.B.Marshall> <he excited
no interest; he was merely something to parse -- Ben Riker>

Neither of these apply to what you apparently mean in your second
usage of the word (after that second usage, I am not sure what you
mean in your first usage).

If by "parsed" you mean: "broken down into simpler, more elementary,
more commonplace and easier for most people to understand terms", then
you are incorrect. The ideas of the essay certainly can be so broken
down and made more digestible to a less erudite reader. However, doing
so has two major problems against it.

1) The ideas are so revolutionary and inherently interconnected that
they cannot stand alone to individual presentation. Therefore, any
such "child's garden of Social Meta-Needs Theory" would be so
voluminous that no-one would be likely to read it.
2) That essay is my most succinct statement of the theory on which my
solution to the problem of how society can be sufficiently
self-ordering rests. It presents a fundamentally new approach to this
problem and is therefore addressed to those who already have the
background and intelligence to understand it in such a brief form. In
addition, it is very hard to get such people to read anything which is
longer, with more examples and more explanation. (But then you
apparently did understand this "targeting", since you stated above
that you were "of the appropriate 'target audience'".)

It is my hope that people such as yourself will read it, be intrigued
to then read and attempt to digest the implications of it explored in
the rest of the website, query me on anything either not understood or
thought to be faulty or inconsistent and, finally, agree with my
approach and help me to communicate and promote it to the rest of the
thinking world.

Moreover, there are some parts of my social theory that can be at
least introduced without all the related ideas, and these are the
subjects of several essays in the "focus" section of the website at:
http://selfsip.org/focus/ - written mostly by Kitty (with my editing :).

> Hayek, Mises, anyone whom has attempted to define the term,

I have noted that you often misuse the word "whom " which is the
objective form of "who", most generally used as the object of a
preposition (to whom, for whom, with whom, etc). In the above (as with
the construction "of those whom", which I saw several times in your
"Rhetoric" entry) the word is the subject of a clause modifying a
pronoun (essentially an adjective clause describing the meaning of the
preceding pronoun - "those" in this case). As such, the correct form
of the word should be "who". Interestingly, in the phrase in the very
first sentence quoted in this reply "represents someone who", you used
the correct form of the word. Since (as Kitty informs me) you have
stated your desire to be precise, I make this comment only to assist
you in that goal.

> "Technological Singularity", et al. -- they all have/had this issue.
> Comprehensive precision has its value and its *place*. Initial outreach
> isn't one such.

This is true, but, as with mine, outreach is not generally the purpose
of the writings of such people (at least not to the masses). They are
addressing those who are already convinced of the major problems with
some present situation or already have considerable knowledge about
the subject of their presentation. Their purpose is to present what
they consider to be the logically and realistically correct viewpoint
about the foundations of the subject of their presentation - to
attempt to resolve the disputes and dissensions which are rampant
within their field of knowledge and to unify those in the field behind
a set of principles that are more valid for reality. In that sense,
their (and my) work *is* certainly "outreach", but outreach to the
intelligentsia of the subject matter of their writing, rather than to
the public in general.

> But does this mean that the message need must be "watered down"? Are
> we condemned to the tyranny of the KISS principle? I say, "*No!*".
> The key, perhaps, can be found in an application of Occam's Razor,
> outside of the realm of logic debate. To do this, we must return
> somewhat to the original phrasing of Occam's Razor. Rather than, "All
> things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one",
> we must consider: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

I am in total agreement with Occam's Razor and I practice it
constantly. (BTW, it is not merely a principle of logic, but is
fundamental to all scientific theory.) That having been said, there
are many, many words in the English language, particularly words
related to social/political subjects, which are so badly muddied with
multiple (and often conflicting) meanings that in order to be totally
clear about my meanings, I found it absolutely necessary to make many
redefinitions of such words (usually merely picking one of the extant
meanings - generally the etymologically primary meaning) as the single
one that I would always mean by the use of that word. Hopefully, as
you read my work you will understand the necessity for this. Think of
it in terms of a contract. Every well written contract must begin with
a number of definitions of the words used within it, in order that
there be no possible misunderstanding about exactly what are the
rights and responsibilities of the parties to the contract. I find
far, far too many writings these days to be so highly imprecise and
misunderstandable as to be practically worthless.

>
> It seems that in the drive to find a way to get their pet "message"
> out, everyone -- not just libertarians and transhumanists -- tends
> to forget the difference between the terms; "simple", and fundamental".
> For brevity's sake, here's what came up from a google definition
> search of the word, "fundamental":

I have snipped the definition which I maintain is much better done at:
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=fundamental&x=0&y=0
(subscription needed, unfortunately) where the major synonyms given
for fundamental are: primary, essential, basic, indispensable,
irreducible, underlying, principal, vital and elementary (in the sense
of being that from which a greater whole is built).


> This is, in fact, something that people such as Albert Einstein and
> Leonardo daVinci understood: simplicity as elegance is nowhere near the
> same as "dumbing down". Certainly, everybody today knows the idea,
> E=mC˛. For most people, that's enough to convey the idea once the
> terms are explained on their own. No further explanation need be
> given.

However, E=mC˛ is merely a very small portion of Einstein's theory and
its implications, and I do not think that one can conclude from that
equation that Einstein was any expert at outreach to the public.
Instead it was some already knowledgeable people who read Einstein's
technically written theories who then made them available and
understandable (partially) to the general public. There are now many
writers who are doing the same for Mises, and I hope that some will
come along to do the same for my extension/completion of Mises'
praxeology into the realm of social values of all kinds.

> So, to all you libertarians, transhumanists, or just people with
> ideas you think need sharing: What is the fundamental essence of
> that idea? How do we capture, en brevis, the essence of that idea,
> without reams and reams of paper?

IMO, there are already many, perhaps far too many, so-called
libertarians harping away at all the political shenanigans occurring
daily. The reason why I think there are too many is twofold:
1) These people have no clear foundations for what they are saying.
2) When they rarely present any solutions (instead of just
complaining) these people present highly conflicting ideas of what
should be done. This is because there is no foundational social theory
on which their proffered solutions are based.
See an essay about current libertarian writings at:
http://selfsip.org/focus/angerandanguish.html


> Too often, we focus on "Keeping it simple." I say, simple's not the
> answer; rather, "Fundamentalize."

Except that I would rather state it as "essentialize", I agree with
you. The problem is that these people have not yet found and adopted
any fully consistent set of foundations for their ideas. The purpose
of my work is precisely to provide such foundations.


--Paul Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting