The “Why Political Messaging Fails” audio commentary on MICE’s Contributory Economy and Human Authorship:
The second audio commentary is the better conversation.
25 October 2026
Dear Nick,
I know you are being political, but that is where your messaging does not land. In your case, your argument is that the “attack on Helen Hughes [sic] is a cynical excuse for Labor’s assault on online freedom.” It may be the case, on a case-by-case basis, but the general argument does not land with the general public. Although there are great educational issues among the public, the Australian public is sufficiently educated to observe with measured skepticism intent and motivation (not cynicism). Thus the intent and motivation of both Labor and your own messaging is under the gaze.
Generally the media, political parties, and the public have got it correct: the tragedy of Helen Haines ought not be used as a verbal weapon for political intent or motivation.
I have published on this frequently, but who wants to listen to a financially poor scholar (irony). “Rich politicians are the ones to listen to” (sarcasm).
In Mathematical monism, Perceptive Pluralism, and Intent, I state:
Karl Popper’s (1902-1994) Three Worlds of Knowledge — Platonic, Physical, Mental — with Roger Penrose’s (1931-) observes that:
“Undoubted, in reality there are not three worlds, but only one, and the true nature of this world we cannot at present even guess at.”
I believe Penrose is correct, aligning his (her/their/its) “the true nature of this world” (thisness or Haecceity) to what is outside the mental world. Everything else scopes to the mental world (perception). Mathematical monism and perceptive pluralism are not in conflict with each other, as the fools wish it to be (those intent on conflict, warfare, and violence; curse them). Karl Popper was working with models now surpassed by other models which provide a better ‘fit’.
The primary thisness is within the mental world and its judgements are of the mental world: perception, abstraction, judgement, and meta-judgement. All need to be balanced out and fit together in a model. The direct realists are truly naive.
In Excuse if the Post Has No Intention to your Motivations, But Yes is the Intelligence, I wrote:
The Common Sense Philosophy is not perfect but it can often lead into a pathway of better intelligence. There is a clear demonstrable falsehood in the fallacy: a fallacy is a logical error, and thus unintelligible step. Thus the motivation to dismiss the larger meta-reflective in any argument is not to want to be intelligent and to respond to some darker force.
There is comprehensive, logical and intelligent grounding here.
In my general methodology, the Dynamic of Cognition (DoC), I have argued that unreflective, “thrown” prejudices must be transformed into coherent, revisable knowledge. However, the modern digital public square often hinders this development, inducing “symbolic misery” and a “crisis of comprehension” through hyper-fragmented communication. To resist this cognitive decline, educators must look beyond narrow, vocational “quick-to-job” models toward a Comprehensive Education that balances pure logic with lived reality. (Phenomenological Approach to Place, Environment, and Architecture)
Without, this understanding, Nick my friend, and all friends, your messaging does not land with the general public.
Featured Image: Politics-Destroys-Good-Governance
Neville Buch
Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)
- Politicians, Other Political Players, why your messaging does not land with the general public – October 25, 2026
- The Unbound Mind: Independent Scholarship, Institutional Isolation, and the Restoration of Human Authorship – October 20, 2026
- The Road to Geelong: A Re-Narrativization of The Story of Resilience Part 1 – October 20, 2026