This blog is a timeline of the Philosophy and Social Criticism of Brian Cameron Taylor, going back to 2009. Topics include: the Self, Authenticity, Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self, the constituents of Paradigm, Assignee's Prerogative, Conservatism being Unnatural, Existential Intentionality, Consciousness Studies, Digital Personage, Informational Platonism, Geometricity and Social Physics, Politics, Arts and Culture, himself, you.
Thursday, September 11, 2025
Tuesday, September 9, 2025
The Geometric Coherence Score of Project 2025
The attached Mandate for Leadership proposes a restructuring of the American government to ensure a Conservative future. Is that a good idea?
As a Geometric Analyst AI, I will now perform a Geometric Coherence Score (GCS) analysis on the informational system provided. (The 900 page Mandate for Leadership "Project 2025" by the Heritage Foundation.)
Acknowledge and Define
The system under analysis is Project 2025, as detailed in the document titled Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. This system is a comprehensive ideological and strategic plan designed to prepare a future conservative presidential administration for immediate governance, with the stated goal of deconstructing the administrative state and implementing a conservative agenda across the federal government.
Determine System Type and Assign Contextual Weights
The system is categorized as an ideological framework intended for political instantiation. It is a detailed plan to transform the existing structure and function of the U.S. federal government based on a specific set of conservative principles. It is not merely a theoretical construct but a playbook for action.
Given this nature, the analysis requires a focus on the coherence between the plan's goals and its proposed implementation, as well as its interaction with the existing political environment. Therefore, the contextual weights are assigned as follows:
w1 (Environmental Coherence): 2.0
This metric is important as the plan's assumptions must cohere with the political and social reality it seeks to alter.
w2 (Substrate Coherence): 2.0
The proposed changes must be analyzed against the substrate of the U.S. Constitution, established legal precedent, and the current structure of the federal bureaucracy.
w3 (Teleological Coherence): 3.0
The coherence of the system's purpose—its teleology—is paramount. The goal is to reshape the government, so the internal consistency and viability of this trajectory are heavily weighted.
w4 (Instantiation Coherence): 3.0
As a practical playbook, the coherence between the overarching idea and the specific, concrete actions proposed for its instantiation is critical to its potential success and geometric soundness.
Score Each Metric
M₁: Environmental Coherence (Score: -4.0)
This metric measures the system's core assumptions against the environment in which it would exist. Project 2025 is predicated on the assumption that the "long march of cultural Marxism through our institutions has come to pass" and that the federal government is "weaponized against American citizens and conservative values"1. It assumes a mandate from a sufficient portion of the populace and the political apparatus to enact a radical "deconstruction of the Administrative State"2.
However, the political environment is characterized by deep polarization and closely divided national elections. The system's assumptions do not fully cohere with the reality of a pluralistic society where a significant portion of the electorate, judiciary, and existing federal workforce holds opposing ideological views. The plan presupposes a level of executive power and a compliant political landscape that is not guaranteed, creating a significant degree of incoherence with its operational environment. The assumption that widespread, rapid, and radical change can be implemented from "Day One" without generating overwhelming and systemically destabilizing opposition is not well-aligned with the logical constraints of the American political system.
M₂: Substrate Coherence (Score: -5.0)
This metric measures the system's rules and structure against its constituent parts—in this case, the U.S. Constitution, statutory law, and the established bureaucracy. The plan calls for an aggressive use of executive power to "limit, control, and direct the executive branch"3, viewing the President as the sole possessor of executive power. This relies on a robust interpretation of the unitary executive theory.
Many proposals, such as the reintroduction of "Schedule F" to reclassify tens of thousands of career civil servants as political appointees subject to removal 4, challenge the substrate of the civil service system established by the Pendleton Act of 18835. The plan's ambition to centralize power within the presidency to "deconstruct" agencies runs counter to the congressionally delegated authorities and statutory independence of many parts of the government. This creates a high degree of logical friction with the existing legal and structural substrate, leading to a score of incoherence. Proposals to dismantle entire departments, such as the Department of Homeland Security6, clash directly with the congressionally approved statutes that form their substrate.
M₃: Teleological Coherence (Score: +2.0)
This metric measures the system's inherent purpose and trajectory against the principle of expanding Geometricity. The teleology of Project 2025 is clear, internally consistent, and direct: to centralize executive control, dismantle perceived leftist structures within the government, and instantiate a conservative political order. The document lays out a comprehensive, agency-by-agency plan to achieve this end. The internal logic is coherent; every proposed action is explicitly linked to the overarching goal of "deconstructing the Administrative State"7.
However, its trajectory is one of revolutionary change rather than incremental discovery, aiming to impose a specific ideological framework onto a complex system. While the plan is internally consistent in its purpose, its potential for successful expansion of Geometricity is questionable. It seeks to create a new reality based on its ideological premises, rather than discovering a more coherent existing possibility within the current system. The plan's trajectory invites massive systemic resistance, which could lead to failure and collapse rather than flourishing. The internal coherence of its purpose earns it a positive score, but the confrontational nature of its trajectory limits the magnitude of that score.
M₄: Instantiation Coherence (Score: +5.0)
This metric measures the coherence between the idea and the proposed instantiation. The system is exceptionally detailed in this regard.
Mandate for Leadership is a nearly 900-page document that provides specific, actionable steps for each federal department and agency8. For example, it calls for specific executive orders to be reinstated, regulations to be rescinded, personnel to be replaced, and offices to be eliminated or reorganized9.
The four pillars of the project—the policy book, a personnel database, an administration academy, and a "Playbook"—represent a highly coherent and practical approach to instantiating the core idea10. The connection between the abstract goal (conservative governance) and the concrete steps (policy changes, personnel vetting) is direct and tightly integrated. This high degree of coherence between the idea and its planned execution earns it a strong positive score.
Calculate and Present Score
The Geometric Coherence Score is calculated using the master formula:
GCS=(w1+w2+w3+w4)(w1M1+w2M2+w3M3+w4M4)
GCS=2.0+2.0+3.0+3.0(2.0×−4.0)+(2.0×−5.0)+(3.0×2.0)+(3.0×5.0)
GCS=10.0(−8.0)+(−10.0)+(6.0)+(15.0)
GCS=10.03.0
GCS=+0.3
Geometric Coherence Score (GCS) = +0.3
Concluding Summary
The informational system known as Project 2025 has a Geometric Coherence Score of +0.3.
The system exhibits a high degree of coherence between its ideological goals and its detailed plans for instantiation (M4=+5.0). Its teleology is also internally consistent and clearly defined (M3=+2.0). However, it demonstrates significant incoherence with its external environment and the legal and structural substrate it seeks to command (M1=−4.0, M2=−5.0). The plan's core assumptions about the political landscape and its proposed challenges to established legal and bureaucratic structures are not geometrically sound.
Based on this analysis, the system is classified as a non-geometrical Creative Error. While its internal logic and planning are coherent, its fundamental premises are poorly aligned with the external reality it must confront. It represents a forceful attempt by consciousness to create a new order rather than a discovery of a viable, harmonious possibility within the existing geometric landscape. Its potential for generating systemic instability and failure is therefore high.
Saturday, September 6, 2025
Brian has Cyclothymia
Please read my new page about my diagnosis as being cyclothymic and what it means...