newspeak

Commenting on my previous post “Levels of Wealth” Part 1, Alan said in part:
“... You: An example in honor of Alan's IP sentiments follows: Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock in his press release ...
    I would prefer you not so honor me. I find this drivel repulsive as do you. I hope you did not seriously relate this crap to any of my IP arguments. ...
”
    Excuse me. My above quoted lead-in was not intended to honor anyone per se (as another's sentiment could be honored while the person himself is not). I was merely interested in dissecting an example of authoritarian political blather. The type of rhetoric emitted by the dear Australian Attorney-General is hardly anything special and equally precious statements could have been readily gleaned in just about any page of any newspaper. I just focused in on an IP related instance because that theme had merited your defense. There was no interest in implying that you two were particularly in agreement. That being said however, I was taken back by your vehement reaction against Ruddock. He was providing no defense of IP at all, but was merely dutifully reporting a change to the statutes in a pathetic yet wholly typical newspeak manner.

Alan continued:
“... I do find your arguments against Ruddock's statements to be rather poor logic. While the context of the included quotes ... are clearly in reference to the changes in Australian law, you misinterpret them to reference technological capabilities and ignore the certainty that they refer only to reduction in legal prohibitions. That is a strawman argument which is way beneath your capability for logical argument.”
    What I believe I did (and as clearly as I could) was merely to demonstrate how they announce changes in the statutes by choosing vocabulary that is literally consistent only with technological issues ruled by the laws of physics. I even went through the exercise of rewording his statement to read accurate and semantically correct. So it is intriguing to imagine that anyone could honestly believe that I literally misinterpreted Ruddock. To argue that I misrepresented him might be a more legitimate attack.

* From Eric Harris-Braum's openMoney.inf WEB site*                        — Why I was confused although Alan was not. —

Commenting on my previous post, The thought provoking Eric Harris-Braum, Alan worte, “In response to Harris-Braun's openmoney.info page, I would like to say I agree. Specifically, this is an EXCELLENT perspective on money and wealth, with an honesty and clarity and depth that is rare.
Your first impression says, ‘You [i.e. Eric] open with an introduction on the Tradeable - Measurable - Acknowledgeable paradigm. I needed to reread and wrangle with it a bit to get this new perspective into focus.’ I sure hope you provide elaboration on this. I found the paradigm very easy to understand.”
    Elaboration on a personal inability?  Another's insight into this would perhaps be more valid than my own.  Anyway, in Eric's “Levels of Wealth” the circle of Acknowledgeable wealth is more sizable than the merely Measurable, while actually Tradeable wealth (the stuff of mega-billions of GNP) is the smallest of all.  This concept is especially appealing for its propensity to put the realm of traditional money into perspective.  Now then, the “Levels of Wealth” oval graphic moreover implies (to me) that Tradeable is a subset of Measurable which in turn is a subset of Acknowledgeable.  At the very least, this is a comfortable assumption due to the terribly counter intuitive notion of saying that Tradeable wealth is NOT (i.e. excluded from the set of) Measurable and in turn insisting that the Measurable isn't Acknowledgeable.  This would, for me, constitute an overly extreme distancing of these words from their common casual meanings.  Nevertheless Eric, could potentially be advocating exactly this when he writes, “Acknowledgeable Wealth: Friendship, beauty, freedom, civility, culture, happiness, integrity, reputation--these are all forms of acknowledgeable wealth. They are neither tradable nor objectively measurable because their impact is only felt subjectively.”(emphasis added)  Then when Eric teaches that Acknowledgeable wealth are “relationships between systems”, I find myself fumbling with the notion of “beauty” and “freedom” (from the previous sentenece) as relationships between systems.  An excellent recognition of the “interdependent” nature of wealth levels, is followed with a whole section on “Wealth Acknowledgment” which focuses on Tradeable wealth issues.  So I guess this “Acknowledgment” is very much distinguished from (if not the antitheisis of) the former term “Acknowledgeable”.  Perhaps it is unfortunate that the things I've just cited overly interfere with my ability to grasp new perspectives.  However an agreeable benefit of the doubt posture where we all ‘know’ more or less what we're talking about is increasingly objectionable for this student to adopt.  My way of developing his theme would be to start with Acknowledgeable wealth and then examine Measurable and Tradeable as clearly identified natural subsets.

Greetings Frederick Mann,

I would first very much like to thank you for the generosity of your response. The following is extracted from your reply with numbering ("#") added to your five questions; after which comes my answers.