Christopher Langan is Unnecessarily Verbose

1. Academia fails to realize that it’s unfit and unwilling to judge ideas outside of its confines.Those observations are all subsumed under my simplified version - they offer no additional impact to his point when conveyed separately, and, as such, doing so is unnecessary. His views on academia are made plain in both statements, though the second is much more of a summation than the first, which is perfectly fine - the point still gets across. 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".The term "syndiffeonesis" is, in itself, unnecessary - the concept is clearly explainable without the need for the invention of neologisms out of thin air. Langan's idea of a "medium" is essentially common sense, and therefore doesn't need explicit explanation past merely naming it as a medium. The "stratification" of a syndiffeonic relation is completely irrelevant to any practical understanding of the CTMU, and, as such, is unneeded verbosity. Monism is directly reached by the statement "all real things must share a common "backdrop". The fact that two things can be different in some aspects but not all is clear from my statement - "at the most basic level" shows that there can still be differentiation above it but not at it, which is exactly the same conclusion Langan reaches. 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.MAP is self-evidently connected to the Reality Principle, so an explicit statement pointing that out is unnecessary. Contradictions are, by definition, incoherent. The logical conclusion of my formulation of MAP is that reality is responsible for everything, since reality is everything, so of course it implies that reality is responsible for its evolution and structure. That's just one step of deduction away from my statement, and that step did not need to be drawn out like in Langan's writing.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.The diagram was inherently unnecessary, hence the exclusion of any mention of it. The principles in Langan's writing are all represented in my statement, so there is no issue. 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.MAP is a self-evidency that doesn't need to be referenced every time it is used. It's absurd to state "I'm using the law of identity" every time you solve a simple math equation - why is constantly bringing up MAP any different? My statement didn't give an example of a fraction being multiplied for a reason - it's unnecessary. "Doesn't explain that an expanding universe would be logically indistinguishable from a universe with shrinking contents (which becomes very important later on)."Again, things are verbose when they spell every simple conclusion out when doing so is unnecessary because the reader could have came to that conclusion themselves.