Christopher Langan is Unnecessarily Verbose

I don't deny that Chris Langan's writing is quite complex. I merely hold that for various reasons, this complexity is often necessary to convey abstract (and sometimes very nuanced) concepts with precision. However, it's nothing that can't be managed with a bit of patience and concentration. Chris Langan acknowledges that his writing style overshoots the reading comprehension of most of his readers, which is why he is currently in the process of decompressing his theories. However, doing so will require far more words (he estimates 30x his usual word count) and effort on his part. I.e., it is not necessarily possible to describe his theories in a succinct way without sounding verbose or glossing over important aspects. Given additional space, he will be able to explain them more simply because the complexity will less concentrated, and he will have the room to guide people along. As we will see, my opponent's simplistic rendering of Langan's statements often leaves out important distinctions, are simply wrong, or rob them of their literary merits. Chris Langan's writing may be unnecessarily verbose if his goal were to simply give people a very vague sense of what his theory says, but it's not (indeed, he has already done so elsewhere). His goal has always been to present his theory precisely and convincingly. 1. Simplified: Academia fails to realize that it"s unfit and unwilling to judge ideas outside of its confines. This fails to capture important details, as well as the tone of the comment. It doesn't mention the fact that he thinks academia is given undeserved respect. It doesn't mention the fact that he thinks academia shelters itself from outside criticism or alternative viewpoints. It doesn't mention the fact that academia believes itself to be objective, but in fact only considers ideas that come from within, and is thus circular. Omphaloskeptical is a pretty exotic word, but it fits the context perfectly, and isn't crucial for understanding what he's saying. 2. Simplified: In order for a relation between two things to be recognized, they must first share some "supporting medium" at the most basic level " two things on different "planes of existence", so to speak, cannot be compared. As such, all real things must share a common "backdrop". This sentence doesn't convey nearly as much information as the original. It doesn't tie the term "syndiffeonesis" to the concept. It doesn't clarify what is meant by "supporting medium", and how it relates to the objects. It doesn't explain how a syndiffeonic relation is stratified. It doesn't pursue the implications of this concept (that reality theory must ultimately be a monic theory). It doesn't explain that two things can be different, their difference just can't be irreducible. 3. Simplified: Nothing referencing anything outside of reality is coherent. Doesn't connect MAP to the Reality Principle. Original statement never says that it is "incoherent" for something to refer to something outside reality. Rather, it is says that if some aspect of reality were to refer to something outside reality, it would be in reality, which is a contradiction. Never concludes that this means reality is responsible for its own structure and evolution. 4. Simplified: Cartesian Dualism fails because, for mind and matter, if they were on different planes of existence, to be related, they must share a medium in common " therefore monism. This doesn't help explain the diagram. Way too vague. 5. Simplified: The universe, since it cannot be compared and measured to anything "outside" it, cannot be said to grow or shrink " things can only be measured inside and within the bounds of the universe. Doesn't reference MAP. Doesn't use the example of a fraction being multiplied to get the point across. Doesn't explain that an expanding universe would be logically indistinguishable from a universe with shrinking contents (which becomes very important later on).