Dear JM
Thanks for your comments.
Most of the comments you make have already been addressed in the paper. The limit of space means that some significant points must be summarized. Therefore, your call for either more data or a fleshing out of a point requires much more data. You are also introducing new terms or definitions the paper doesn't use.
"For one thing, I would make the argument that knowledge is inherently subjective."
I think you need to define "knowledge" a bit more. The paper addressed "understanding" and suggested understanding is concerned with prediction. Understanding is present to the degree that prediction of observations or events is realized. A model's predictions either occur or not. A subtlety is that science requirement that a "model" must be falsifiable. If your "knowledge" includes suggestions that are not falsifiable, then your "knowledge" is not my "understanding".
"To define is to limit and to limit is to define." Of course. But such action has a purpose in the survival game.
"So when we make models, we necessarily exclude whatever is not pertinent...". How do we exclude whatever is not pertinent? The paper suggested all models that are falsifiable have areas of applicability that implies there is likely some data that falsifies the model. "pertinent" is your idea.
"...and there is no such thing as an overall model." Of course not. We cannot create a universe today and, therefore, we do not understand an "overall model". But it may be an interesting topic for a debate of whether an overall model is possible.
"The absolute is basis, not apex, so we and our models, rise up from the elemental, not having fallen from the ideal." You need to define your terms better so a conversation can begin. Of course, the paper sugggested models develop and improve predictiblity for our survival.
"The consequence is that often, when there is no readily apparent compromise, competition is terminal." No. There is war and war may result in a competitor's death. The paper did mention cooperation is the best competition. Your compromise need not be a part of cooperation. Nature has had competition and developed increased complexity.
"So making states sovereign will eventually negate any larger confederacy. As you say, nature rules and nature doesn't give many fairy godmothers. So while the US is reaching a point of stagnation, breaking the union will create a situation that will not be neat. There would be no getting that genie back in the bottle." The goal in the paper was to make a nation that consists of states. What do you include in "sovereign"? I did not include a national military in the state authority. Therefore, I did not suggest a confederacy of sovereign states.
"Another major point I see that you do not develop are the economic forces which are pulling all these political strings in the first place. Politics is prescriptions and proscriptions, which are weak soup to the incentives of economics. As I see it, models generally follow an arc, where they are first effective and useful, but then the functionaries take over and it becomes mindless momentum and the system marches itself off a cliff. That is what is happening with the financial system. Originally capitalism was about the efficient allocation of resources, with the 'invisible hand of the market.' Now it is about the blind accumulation of wealth and the production of increasingly nebulous capital to satisfy this appetite. Since finance is the economic circulatory system, the result will amount to a massive coronary, as this 'high blood pressure' takes its toll. We had what amounted to massive doses of electroshock therapy to save the system in 08, but it didn't change any of the behaviors and only created the impression of invulnerability by the banks." This is not in the paper. Indeed, I would argue that your view is very slanted and incorrect. What is in the paper (briefly) is that a new system is created. If it satisfies nature, it grows and thrives. Then it changes to a condition that fails nature. This results in decline and death. The US used capitalism (It may be worth another paper to dispute this - but not here.) to grow. The people and the political authority perverted the economic system that resulted in the decline now. "Decline" not massive coronary. I do not agree with your view of the events of the last 5 decades.
Hodge (rather than "John" to distinguish all the Johns)