THIS IS THE PLACE TO COME FOR NON HIGH-TECH BREAKTHRUS, LOGICAL ‘CAPITAL NEED’ AVOIDANCE, FLANKING GROSS COST REDUCTIONS, AND FALLOW ASSET PIGGYBACKING OR REPURPOSING; WHAT I CALL UNDER-ENGINEERING. I AM A PRIMITIVE, AN ENGINEER WHISPERER, A BUSINESS OPERATIONS ARCHITECT. IT ENTAILS TIME MOTION, INNOVATION, AND INVENTION. THE COSTS OF THE ENTIRE SYSTEM WILL BECOME LOWER, A SUFFICIENT SET OF SOLUTIONS WILL BECOME CHEAPER, OR THE PRODUCTS WILL TAKE FEWER ASSETS TO CREATE. CERTAIN COMPONENTS ARE ALTERED IN BREADTH OF THEIR ROLE, RECONFIGURED, OR BOTH. “INNOVENTIONS” (MY TERM FOR ‘IN BETWEEN’ SYSTEM REPLACEMENT AND GADGETS) ARE “AN OVERHAUL” NOT AT ALL A REVOLUTION. JUST THE SAME, THEY ARE A TOUGH SELL. BUSINESSMEN DESPISE HAVING SEVERAL COST FACTORS UP IN THE AIR AT THE SAME TIME. RUDIMENTARY INNOVATION IS AN ACT OF BRIGHTNESS NOT SMARTS PER SE AND ALWAYS GETS ACCOMPANIED BY A RESISTED AND INITIALLY UNAPPRECIATED CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE. EXPERTS ARE VERY SMART SO ONLY RARELY SIMPLIFY AND ALMOST NEVER ALTER THEIR POINTS OF VIEW THAT GOT THEM THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT SMARTS FINDING OUT THAT SOMETHING THEY TOOK AS A GIVEN [ESSENTIALLY AN ABSOLUTE] WAS MALLEABLE, AFTER ALL. THE THEME OF SUCH ADJUSTMENT IS OFTEN SINGULAR BUT THE TACTICS TEND TO BE MULTI-ITEM AND TEND TO BE RELEVANT ON AN INDUSTRY-WIDE BASIS. EVEN SO, THEY TEND TO BE DESIGNED ‘IN THEIR FIRST FRUITION INSTANCE’ FOR INCORPORATION BY THE SMALLEST OF INDUSTRY PARTICIPANTS. THESE “LITTLE” FIRMS, OR PLANTS, OR STAND ALONE PROJECTS EXUDE THE GREATEST POTENTIAL TO BENEFIT FROM INNOVENTIONS AND TO DO SO THE MOST COMFORTABLY. BIGGER FIRMS USUALLY PILE UP AN OVERLY ACCOMPLISHED BUNDLE OF ECONOMIES OF SCALE. THE STRENGTH OF MY HERITAGE HAS BEEN TO TRULY NOTICE THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH OVERLAPPING ECONOMIES HAVE COMMENCED TO WORK AT CROSS PURPOSES. ‘SCALE CONTESTS’ ARE UNAVOIDABLE THEY ARE THE ENGINEERING EQUIVALENT OF BUREAUCRACY. WE NEED A NEW WORD OR TWO, FIRST A ***CRACY THEN A TERM FOR ‘THE FIX’. IN SPORTS, FOR FIX METHOD YOU COULD SAY BILL RUSSELL, ROD CAREW, OR JOE MONTANA. ELON MUSK HAS MOVED IN THIS SAME DIRECTION AND MAY BE ENCOURAGED TO EVOLVE FURTHER EVEN AGAINST RECENT TESLA SCALE SELF INTEREST. WE HAVE A GENERIC METHOD FOR REWORKING AN ‘INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS MODEL’ VIA INITIAL GIRTH TRIMMING, CATEGORY COST REDUCTIONS, AND MARGINAL REVENUE PURSUITS.

The rest of this means more than a little to me. To most everyone else, it surely comes across like the rabbit hole. The first paragraph stand on its own. It says that scores of my packages of alterations and inventive inclusions will save dozens of industries 10–30% in gross costs and often more than 50% in upfront capital by emphasizing Diminishing Marginal Utility and becoming more selective about Economies of Scale. Plus, quite a few of the inventions do more than save money. They do actually break ground and open Vistas.

THESE SMALL FRY COMPETITORS CAN BE THOUGHT OF AS ‘MORGAN’ HORSES. BEST AT NOTHING BUT THE DECATHLON, BEST AT LONG HIGH PORTAGE, BEST SLUGGING/ON BASE/BASE ADVANCING HOWEVER ACHEIVED COMBO AVERAGE ARE THE KIND OF THOUGHTS BEHIND THE TRAITS OF SUCH FIRMS. CALL THEIR USUAL PERSPECTIVE “LITTLE” BUSINESS IN CONTRAST TO ‘SMALL’. MORE ON THIS LATER, BUT FOR NOW SUFFICE TO SAY THEY ARE PLIABLE TO WIN AT IRR. MY STRENGTH IS TO REPACKAGE PHYSICS AND ENGINEERING {THE JUSTIFICATIONS OF COSTS} BY TESTING THE PARAMETERS OF THE MOST ELEMENTARY RELEVANT WORDS OR TERMS. I AM PURE WITTGENSTEINIAN. THIS MEANS A PURE SIMPLETON. IN MY CASE THIS MEANS PURE RUMINANT. IT MEANS NOTHING MORE THAN BEING NOVEL ABOUT BEING NIMBLE. “LITTLE” BUSINESS SIMPLY CAN NOT WIN NOR EVEN COMPETE AS THE TOP HEAVY PRODUCER. THIS MEANS UTILIZER OF THAT WHICH MUST BE AMORTIZED FOR LONGER THAN IT TAKES COMPETITORS TO RECONFIGURE TWICE. SO, IF EXPENSIVE AND COMPLEX ARE OFF THE TABLE (AND YOU CAN’T SELL MONEY FOR HALF PRICE, SO FANCY MARKETING IS OUT), THE REMAINING VIABLE OPTION IS TO GO RUDIMENTARY. ARCHIMEDES KNEW THIS.

WITTGENSTEIN SPAWNED MANY DECADES OF THOUGHT THAT GREATLY DIVERGED FROM WHERE HE WENT AFTER WWI. THE DERIVATIVES HAVE MERIT, BUT GOOD LUCK FINDING HELP INVENTING, TOO MANY BIG WORDS. INVENTING IS ALL ABOUT THE SMALL WORDS AND SMALL PARTS OF THOSE SMALL WORDS. IT IS CHALKBOARD STUFF VERY NOT PhD WORTHY. IT DOESN’T DISSERTATION SUFFICIENTLY. WITTGENSTEIN WAS USURPED BY NON THOUGHT EXPERIMENTERS. “PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS” HIS POSTHUMOUS 30 YEAR PLUS ‘COBBLE’ IS LARGELY MISUNDERSTOOD. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LINGUISTICS AT ITS CORE. WITTGENSTEIN MADE HIMSELF THE ‘GENERIC EINSTEIN’. HE GENERALIZE THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT BEYOND PHYSICS AND PHYSICS TERMS OR APPLICATIONS FOR MATHLETES TO NOTHING MORE THAN THE “REPACKAGING” OF THE SIMPLEST OF WORDS. THE BOOK SERVES AS ‘PRIMER’ FOR ADVANCING ANY INDUSTRY OF WHICH EINSTEIN JUST HAPPENED TO PICK THE ROUGHEST FIELD. REMEMBER, HE CAME OF AGE WITH EINSTEIN’S PHYSICS WORLD ASCENDANCE NOT HIS LATER FAME IN THE LONDON (NO WAITING FOR TRANSLATION NOR PROFESSORIAL EXPLANATION NEITHER) TIMES.

I PRESUME THAT LONG BEFORE HE FINISHED ‘TRACTATUS’, HE REALISED ITS LACK OF COMPLETENESS OR FRUITION, ITS ‘SPECIAL CASENESS’. IT WAS THE BEST OF GREEK THINKING, THE BEST OF MODELING OR LOOKING FOR AN ESSENCE. IT CAPPED OFF KANT. IT PUT THE PATINA ON BERTRAND RUSSELL. IT WHITTLED SUMMARY TYPE PERSUASION AND THE CONVINCING METAPHOR TO A SHARP EDGE AND EVEN POINTIER POINT. YET, IT DID NOT SATISFY THE SOCRATIC METHOD. IN TRACTATUS YOU HAVE TO ALREADY “KNOW OF” ‘WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW’. THIS IS ALSO THE LIMITATION OF HIGH-TECH. IN OTHER WORDS, ALL TEACHABLE THOUGHT CAN BE TAUGHT [IT CAN BE DRAWN FROM PREVIOUS THOUGHT, ie IT CAN BE WRITTEN AND STUDIED.] ALL “SCIENCE” CAN HAVE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD APPLIED. BUT TRACTATUS COULD NOT CRACK CONVENTIONAL ‘USAGE UNDERSTANDINGS’ OF WORDS WHICH CONSTRAINS IMAGINATION INTO “CLASSICAL” SYSTEM THOUGHT. UP TIL THEN, ALL ANALYTICAL, LOGICAL, SCIENTIFIC, OR PHYSICS WORDS HAVE HAD TO “PRETEND” TO HAVE AN ABSOLUTE COMPONENT TO THEM. WE HAD NO EINSTEIN STYLE WORD STARTING OR WORD RE-EMERGENCE {THE TRUE ‘SILK PURSES’ OF LOW COST INNOVENTING} POINT. THEREAFTER, HE TURNED ‘ALL’ TRUE PHILOSPHY SOLELY INTO THE PURSUIT OFF ‘WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW’ ‘THAT YOU DON’T KNOW’. ACTUAL PHILOSOPHY RESIDES IN THE WORDPLAY. IT’S WORD GAMES WHICH UNDO, UNZIP, TEAR DOWN, OR DICE UP MEANING PRIOR TO FINDING NEW PURPOSE FOR AND NEW RELATIONSHIP AMONGST THE PIECES. TIME AND SPACE HAVE BY FAR THE MOST NOTORIETY, BUT IT WORKS EVERYWHERE. WORDS ARE KINDA LIKE BORDERS IN EUROPE. ALL BUT ‘A PRIORI’ WORDS ARE ENTIRELY RELATIVE. ALL PRECEEDING PHILOSOPHY IS TO SOME EXTENT “META”PHYSICS. YOU MUST GET OVER WORDS HAVING ANY INHERENT MEANING.

I STRUGGLED FOR THREE WEEKS WITH THIS ‘ESCHEWING OF THE NOTION’ THAT ‘THOUGHT MATTERS’ INDEPENDENT OF ITS ‘WORDS’ SO THAT I COULD ENTER ‘POST GREEKNESS’. WE SIMPLY DO NOT ‘THINK’ FIRST AND THEN ASCRIBE THE BEST WORDS. FUNDAMENTAL THINKING HAS TO BE THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS WHICH IS THE BREAKING UP OF SOME WORDS SO THAT WE MAY REPACKAGE THEM. I THINK WITTGENSTEIN WAS THE FIRST TO RECOGNIZE THAT EINSTEIN WAS ONTO SOMETHING, RIPPING UP WORDS ON PURPOSE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT FARADAY AND CARNOT HAD ALSO DONE SYSTEMATICALLY WITHOUT CONSCIOUSLY TRYING TO DO SO. TRACTATUS TURNS INTO THE SPECIAL THEORY OF ‘ANALYTICAL WORD MODELING RELATIVITY’??? AND “PI” (CERTAINLY FROM ‘BLUE BOOK’ ONWARD) SERVES AS THE GENERAL THEORY OF WORD RELATIVITY. DR. WILLIAM BRENNER INTRODUCED ME TO THE SUBJECT, WROTE ON IT (ON AMAZON), AND MADE ME COMPETENT TO CARRY HIS RECEIVED WISDOM FAR BEYOND WHAT HE CONTEMPLATED OR WHAT USES HE ENVISIONED IT HAD.

A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ALVIN W TOFFLER

Like what you read? Give Tracey Auerbach a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.