Christopher Langan is Unnecessarily Verbose

The simplest way to show that Langan’s writing is overly complex is to compare his explanations of his thoughts with much pithier versions that convey exactly the same information. All but the first quotation are taken from the CTMU. Without further ado: Langan’s Original: “The precious, carefully cultivated orchids of academia often forget in the course of their well-referenced but ultimately omphaloskeptical self-explorations that they very much belong to an intellectual closed shop, and that their own cognitive gaps preclude definitive judgments on the cognitive adequacy of the weeds that grow wild and free beyond the sheltering walls of their ivory tower hothouses.” Simplified: Academia fails to realize that it’s unfit and unwilling to judge ideas outside of its confines. Why the simplified version is sufficient: It gets to the heart of the matter without using fanciful language and words like “omphaloskeptical”. Langan’s Original: “The concept of syndiffeonesis can be captured by asserting that the expression and/or existence of any difference relation entails a common medium and syntax, i.e. the rules of state and transformation characterizing the medium. It is from these rules that the relation derives its spatial and temporal characteristics as expressed within the medium. Thus, a syndiffeonic relation consists of a difference relation embedded in a relational medium whose distributed rules of structure and evolution support its existence. […] [A]ny difference relation requires a supporting medium with extension in the differential parameter. As illustrated, the medium distributes over both the linear relation “X differs from Y” and its relands (related entities) X and Y, bestowing on them a common “relatedness” property equating to “inclusion in the relational medium X(unisection)Y”, where X(unisection)Y is the unisect or “syntactic product” of X and Y. This common attribute invalidates any assertion to the effect that the difference between the relands is “absolute” or “irreducible”; the mere fact that the difference can be linguistically or geometrically expressed implies that it is only partial and that both relands are manifestations of one and the same ontological medium. Where X and Y represent arbitrary parts or aspects of the difference relation called reality, this diagram graphically demonstrates that reality ultimately consists of a unitary ontological medium. Accordingly, reality theory must be a monic theory reducing reality to this medium” 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”. Why the simplified version is sufficient: The core argument for monism is kept intact and no supports have been dropped – my formulation is changed only so that time and words do not have to be spent building a mathematical framework for a concept that can be understood perfectly without it. Langan’s Original: “MAP, a theoretical refinement of the self-containment criterion set forth by the Reality Principle, extends the closure property of the definition of reality to the set of all real predicates. MAP effects closure on the definitive, descriptive, explanatory and interpretative levels of reality theory by making it take the form of a closed network of coupled definitions, descriptions, explanations and interpretations that refer to nothing external to reality itself. Another way to state this is that MAP, like the Reality Principle, requires that everything to which any reality-theoretic definition, description, explanation or interpretation refers be located within reality. This has the effect of making reality responsible for its own structure and evolution in the abstract and concrete senses. [+ the following swarm of paragraphs basically restating this principle over and over]” Simplified: Nothing referencing anything outside of reality is coherent. Why the simplified version is sufficient: Langan is basically just saying that reality encompasses all that is real, and, as such, nothing outside of reality can be referenced. This is so self-evident that it’s mindboggling that Langan needs to devote so much space to it – utterly unnecessary. Langan’s Original: “M=R (Mind = Reality) Principle. In the above syndiffeonic diagram, mind is juxtaposed with reality in a space bounded by a box. The line separating mind and reality represents the supposed difference between them, while the interior of the box represents their comparability or “relatedness” (or more technically, their uniform differentiating syntax or unisect, denoted by means of the ï¿½ functor). The extensionality of the line is just that of the box; without the box, there would be no extensional medium to contain the line, and no way to express the associated difference relation. Because the separation cannot exist without a common medium incorporating a differentiative syntax that distributes over both relands of the difference relation, the “absolute separation” of mind and reality has no model…and without a model, the premise of Cartesian mind-matter dualism fails. This indicates that reality and mind, information and information processor, must ultimately be regarded as one. Any Cartesianstyle distinction between them must be strictly qualified.” 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. Why the simplified version is sufficient: This was one of the oldest objections to Cartesian Dualism – all Langan did was dress it up in his neologisms. Nothing new is being described that could not be described with arguments hundreds of years old (which were in much more straightforward terms). Langan’s Original: “It has already been noted in connection with MAP that where the external dimensions of a system are undefined, no distinction as to size can be made beyond the size ratio of the system to its contents. Consider a simple arithmetical analogy: 1/2 = 1000/2000 = 1(109999)/2(109999) = (…). Where the numerator and denominator of a fraction are both multiplied by a given number, the value of the fraction does not change; it is independent of distinctions involving the size of the multiplier. Similarly, the intrinsic proportionality of a self-contained system is independent of distinctions involving any external measure. This implies that with respect to a self-contained universe for which no external measure exists, no distinction can be made between the expansion of the system with respect to its contents, and the shrinkage of its contents with respect to it. In fact, because that which is undefined cannot change – there is nothing definite with respect to which change would be possible – apparent expansion of the container cannot be extrinsically defined, but implies a conspansively-equivalent intrinsic shrinkage of its contents.” 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. Why the simplified version is sufficient: Langan’s point is relatively simple and doesn’t benefit from the discussion of mathematics, the repetitive mentions of proportionality, etc.