MY LATEST PRESENTATION
Jonathan's talk at the Laws of Form Conference 2022 in Liverpool, England.
GOD VERSUS LANGUAGE: CONTRASTING METAPHYSICAL METHODS OF WITTGENSTEIN’S TRACTATUS AND LANGAN’S CTMU
Christopher Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) was first published no less than two decades ago. Unfortunately, however, this work has received little attention from contemporary academia. Mr. Langan is often lambasted for his ostensible prolixity, obscurantism, and his writings' supposed "lack of rigor". However, if one holds steadfastly to one's own curiosity and powers of intellectual discernment, one will unearth a theory that will indeed shake this very world as we know it. In this book, I endeavor, through a cross-analysis with Langan's work with that of Ludwig Wittgenstein, to illustrate the CTMU in all of its metaphysical and spiritual grandeur, leading the reader to form his own conclusions about the theory.
A novel metaphysical paradigm is knocking at our door. Christopher Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU), though it is currently underappreciated, is a theory of everything that has the potential to alter every facet of our world. In this short book, the author presents the core ideas of Langan's theory in a simple and straightforward manner, drawing stylistic inspiration from the illustrious philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.
FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: JOURNEYING FROM IDENTITY POLITICS TO HUMAN POLITICS
I was lost and totally confused. The year was 2016 and I voted for Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. Being a mere nineteen years old—battling severe depression and social anxiety—I was looking for “Hope” and I was looking for “Progress”. In this book, I start out by chronicling my personal political journey, moving from the bowels of the modern left to the opening arms of the modern right. Following this, I lead the reader on a hard-hitting analytical journey, addressing and deftly dismissing some of the modern left’s most persuasive and most used tools of narrative. In the end, things are poignantly brought back to home, as I address the overall deficiencies of the liberal idea of “progress” and how this relates to the theme of finding personal meaning in one’s own life. This is at once a heartfelt story of personal triumph and a profoundly rigorous and witty treatment of liberal rhetoric. Hold on to your hats.
MODERNITY & THE RISE OF THE POCKET GOD
Modernity and the Rise of the Pocket God explores the relationship between modern religion and ancient values. Journey through the bucolic fields of the ancient villager, en route to the concrete jungles and splendid skylines of the modern city-goer. See what wedded the ancient believer to his God and his fellow believers. Then glimpse the growing chasm between the modern believer, her society, and her Father. And, in the end, see what us modern folks can do to attain an ancient-like communion with the Lord.
Today is the age of “fact.” Modern media, of all ideologies, eagerly gets its hands on anything and everything that can be tabulated, neatly packaged and branded as “indisputable truth.” But rarely do we stop and think about what we mean by “true.” Philosophers of the 21st century still argue about what the concept “true” even means. How can we—as everyday citizens—be expected to wield this formidable “f-word” with poise and fervor? Perhaps the best place to start is with the history of the “fact-check.” How did this cultural fixture form, and where is it leading us? Although the intentions of fact-checking are noble enough—many of its key players see themselves as reforming an increasingly emotional, subjective trend of journalism—its basic assumptions can be dangerous. Fact-checking’s strongest virtue, the zeal for truth, threatens to tie public society up into recklessly self-assured knots. We must resist the urge to oversimplify what it means to be “true” and “false,” “disputable” and “indisputable.” We must step out from behind our streamlined screens and engage with this world as it is—beautifully messy and splendidly complex.
SKETCHES OF A SELF-BUILDING CALCULUS
The great beast that was self-reference, against all common sense, has proved little more than a sheep in wolf’s clothing. Georg Cantor, the father of set theory, said “By a set we understand any collection of mathematical objects (including sets),” admitting the inescapable self-reference of the concept. Computer scientists acknowledge that “Turing machines” have the capacity to simulate themselves. Self-reference is ubiquitous. And it need not be synonymous with paradox. In this prefaced collection of research papers, I attempt to explain why this is so. But don’t worry—it’s not all dry and brittle formalism!
In the preface, I trace the history of art as it relates to philosophy and logic; full color images and all. I don’t get too caught up in the “isms” or the movements, but I do draw some exciting parallels between specific types of art and forms of reasoning. Kazimir Malevich and his “abstract art” offer a glimpse into the paradigm of abstraction that bloomed in the early 20th century. Surrealism, the off-the-wall, larger-than-life movement sheds some light on the nature of logical paradox. And the legendary M.C. Escher and his self-referential sketches offer us a way forward. At the end of it all, one thing shines brightly—human reasoning is a self-resolving paradox.
UBER AND THE MEANING OF LIFE
Philosophers have mused about the meaning of life for millennia. But is it possible that we can finally seize these long-sought answers… from the back of an Uber car? In nearly one hundred personal interviews, part-time philosopher and full-time Uber driver Jonathan Mize puts this question to the test as he asks his riders everything from “What haunts you?” and “What does love mean?” to “What would you tell your boss if you couldn’t be fired?” Although the author merely traversed the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, the wild array of answers he received paints a very diverse and exciting picture. And if one thing’s for certain—for all humanity’s quirks and divisions, we may just be more alike than we’d like to admit!