1/ Infant idea; not sure if new:

Compositional atomism isn't true, but what I'll call "compilational" (in reference to computer science) atomism is true

But everything compiles down to "the Dao," descriptions of which are subject to Quine's interderminacy of translation

2/ But no matter what, the world-narrations and meaning-making/sensemaking behaviors of any world-narrator are patterned (albeit conditionally, transiently, etc.).

I'll call the totality of all this for any subject the "Gesamtsprache" (total language).

3/ So the Gesamtsprache of any subject is changed by mechanisms like reward/punishment, assimilitation/accomodation.

It will tend towards equilibria. But because of indeterminacy of translation & subjective differences, there is not ONE equilibrium.

4/ The actual equilibrium reached will also depend heavily on the *actual* reward/punishment events experienced.

One's Gesamptsprache does not adapt to "possible" stimuli that one is not *actually* exposed to (e.g. those that may affect some posited abstract/other subject).

5/ We can make pragmatic evaluations of Gesamtsprachen according to several criteria. e.g.:

current reward/punishment
vulnerability to potential reward/punishment
[^relatedly, scope of coverage]
parsimony (ease of use/access)
ease of communication w/ other Gesamtsprachen

6/ Good equilibrium Gesamptsprachen tend to have powerful "compilation algorithms" that make sense of as much as possible.

For example, the totality of "Western" academia is on a pretty good track w/ its various domains of self-improving science.

7/ However, to take a *particular* theoretical framework (especially a static one w/o criteria for self-modification) *as* the Gesamtsprache leads to high punishment. As in when it's wrong/unsuitable.

8/ But the actual totality of knowledge or whatever is VERY difficult (indeed impossible) for an individual human subject to grasp.

Also, ease of application is a real issue. It takes real effort to learn to do science well, for example. "STEM" is a decent GS, but *hard.*

9/ Controversial thesis:

The 4/5-element system of many ancient cultures is actually a VERY decent base language for a Gesamtsprache to compile to, if you're not specifically trying to produce new technologies or anything.

In fact, most people should be taught ^ instead of STEM

10/ The *actuality* of reward/punishment events is very important to consider. Education is not free.

One doesn't *need* "post-rationalism" to make decent sense of everyday life, for most lifestyles. To develop it is indeed a waste of limited resources.

11/ I especially think this because of the shitty deluded & literally wrong & bad corrupted misunderstanding of STEM/rationalism a LOT of people have today. It is actually *harmful*.

These people would probably be much better off if we weren't *trying* to teach them "STEM".

12/ I think a big part of the problem is that as even as total human knowledge rapidly grows, there's an implicit consensus belief that it's good to give every *individual* as close an approximation to the totality of human knowledge as possible.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS!!

13/ At least, the idea can be questioned. Other factors can be considered in determining who would really benefit from education towards one's understanding approximating total human understanding.

Some people won't. With these people, actively do something different.

14/ I suggested the 4/5 elements system as a best-available "commoner's Gesamtsprache," if you will. But it could probably be improved by intentional design.

Social changes would also be necessary. The implementation would be a huge project. But again, just an infant idea.