foundational_lib 1.0 → 1.0.1

data/Articles_MD/12.html.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 title: Nonsense
 ---
 
-Nonsense
-========
+Nonsense - And On Speech and Democracy
+======================================
 
 By G.C.
 -------
@@ -11,6 +11,76 @@ By G.C.
 There is a lot of nonsense in the world and in the mainstream
 engineering establishment.
 
+It can be very difficult, if not seemingly impossible, to get a word in
+edgewise with many people.
+
+There is a major issue of having a limited range of discourse (in
+politics, choice-making affairs, etc.).
+
+\
+\
+\
+
+#### On Government and Gerontocracy
+
+A Gerontocracy would likely be a better form of Government and it seems
+that the young are all too eager to exacerbate issues with Government
+and Democracy, in a myriad of ways.
+
+Here are some ways
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+-   They look young and clean, demonstrating charisma, charm,
+    \"popularity\" (and it\'s attendant superficialities) and deception
+    over authenticity, candor and verbose and unpalatable or unpopular
+    speech or discussions.
+-   They have more energy, and are all the more likely to use it
+    sloppily, dangerously or unwisely.
+-   They have less experience and knowledge and wisdom, leading to worse
+    outcomes.
+-   They might even seem less formidable or intimidating to adversaries
+    or peers.
+
+In Democracy, and this is often overlooked, there is a major
+*MECHANICAL* issue, and that is of the *MECHANICS* of increasing the
+degree of new ideas put out there.
+
+There is a misconception that this automatically \"happens\", even in a
+\"free\" democracy. At its root, this is a struggle of interpersonal
+relations and only happens to the extent that this is not stifled or
+made more difficult by social and individual barriers.
+
+The young are worse at improving this, the old are better at improving
+this.
+
+The majority of ideas are impeded from public discourse by old social
+obstructionism or lack of individual strength.
+
+If someone might want to suggest an idea, the mainstream conversation
+impedes individuals from feeling empowered to express their thoughts or
+feel like a member of the current discourse (\"current discourse\" is
+being used here in a very general sense).
+
+People who stutter or stammer, and this happens to many people, a large
+portion of people, to varying degrees, actually would be the force that
+could push through this and lead to a broader discussion.
+
+Usually, the vital elements are omitted, the things that should be
+talked about don\'t get talked about. In actual fact, the general
+conversation is less than 1% of the Conversation that should happen.
+
+People who stutter --\
+          either have a disability (to varying degrees)\
+          or are trying to break the mold here and open the
+conversation, and, of course, naturally, they will not be able to
+conceive of their ideas being reciprocated, hence mandating a stutter,
+if it\'s not present due to a disability of some kind.
+
+Even disabled people, not having to seem polished, in many ways are more
+potent for Discourse, than a gleaming figure who doesn\'t try to fight
+to get ideas (new or old), heard.
+
 ::: {.article_link}
 [Previous article](11.html) [Next article](13.html)
 :::

data/Articles_MD/14.html.md

@@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ There is a TREMENDOUS amount of potential with this method of operation.
 But it is important that it be understood. It could be applied in a top
 down fashion from above (the billionaires, etc.), but it would be ideal
 if the common people understood this too -- and if this didn\'t have to
-be applied true pure Fascism -- but rather agreement.
+be applied by true pure Fascism -- but rather agreement.
 
 From this -- an Axiology can be found -- a philosophy or study of Value
 -- comprised of the two branches of the field of Axiology - Ethics and

data/Articles_MD/16.html.md

@@ -2,31 +2,33 @@
 title: Epistemology
 ---
 
-There\'s no fucking way in hell that the mainstream engineering establishment would converse about this epistemology -- I have tried for 5 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+::: {style="text-align: center"}
+There have not been many updates since 2021 for this. I have clarified
+the introduction (starting point.)
 
-Eventually, this will get talked about.
----------------------------------------
+In the beginning, there is no Ontology. Nothing exists.
+=======================================================
 
-::: {style="text-align: center"}
-In the beginning, there is
-==========================
+In the beginning, there is this. We posit this. These are attributes.
+=====================================================================
 :::
 
 \* Existence (no self-ontology)
 
 \* Concreteness (no self-ontology)
 
-\* Anti-existence (anti-ontology \[for others and self too, not
-relevant, no self-ontology\])
+\* Anti-existence (which is anti-ontology \[for others and self too (it
+would be anti-ontology for attributes (if they existed), and anti- the
+existence of all things)\]) (no self-ontology)
 
-\* Anti-concreteness (anti-ontology \[for others and self too, not
-relevant, no self-ontology\])
+\* Anti-concreteness (for others and self too \[it would be
+anti-concreteness for attributes (if they had concreteness), and anti-
+the concreteness of all things\]) (no self-ontology)
 
 All of these attributes have no ontology. They don't exist.
 
 They are attributes, but they are not attributes of anything that
-exists.
+exists. There is no ontology at this level, nothing exists.
 
 It is possible that other attributes are also present in the beginning,
 but they are not relevant and it wouldn't matter if they were present or